Supreme Court Justice Slams Civil Forfeiture (Clarence Thomas)

the Newspaper ^ | 03/08/2017 | n/a

[Rurudyne]

In any matter where the underlying controversy is criminal in nature there should be no civil liability without there being a conviction first.

[Paladin2]

Merrick B. Garlan was Hussein’s “moderate” nomination to replace Scalia.

[MileHi]

But how do you prevent the real criminals from disposing of all their assets, leaving nothing to seize after conviction?

Freeze them pending the outcome of a proper criminal trial. In most of these cases, they have nothing.

[joedish]

If you freeze someones assets they likely will be hindered in being able to afford a vigorous defense. That also is unfair. The government should not be able to seize or freeze the assets of anyone pre conviction. In many cases these seizures or freezes could take months to go trial. Folks could lose houses and businesses without assets during this time. If someone is convicted, and there is a fine associated with the crime or repayment of wronged parties, then go after the assets. We have to stop the government from focusing on crime as a revenue source.

[fella]

What if they are convicted of a crime say illegal entry into the nation?

[napscoordinator]

I suspect hell retire this summer.

[Nuc 1.1]

Not so. This type of law is pricesley what a totalitarian state wants. Get out of line and they will take everything you own. How will you be able to fight back then? The government will never willingly give up this law. The commies will never allow their judges to follow the constitution. Nor would the their judges want too.

[stylin19a]

Justice Thomas just had to deny a petition for a writ of certiorari in this case on 3/6/2017

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-122_1b7d.pdf

[Alas Babylon!]

I think the key to the document is what Justice Thomas writes in the closing paragraph:

Unfortunately, petitioner raises her due process arguments for the first time in this Court. As a result, the Texas Court of Appeals lacked the opportunity to address them in the first instance. I therefore concur in the denial of certiorari. Whether this Court’s treatment of the broad modern forfeiture practice can be justified by the narrow historical one is certainly worthy of consideration in greater detail.

[MileHi]

Well said.