Bingo!
Posted on 02/20/2019 10:16:32 AM PST by NRx
WASHINGTON — Siding with a small time drug offender in Indiana whose $42,000 Land Rover was seized by law enforcement officials, the Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that the Constitution places limits on civil forfeiture laws that allow states and localities to take and keep private property used to commit crimes.
Civil forfeiture is a popular way to raise revenue, and its use has been the subject of widespread criticism across the political spectrum.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Eighth Amendment, which bars “excessive fines,” limits the ability of the federal government to seize property. On Wednesday, the court ruled that the clause also applies to the states.
Previously, the Supreme Court had never squarely addressed that question. It had addressed the status of the Excessive Fines Clause, but only in the context of the federal government. The court had, however, previously ruled that most protections under the Bill of Rights apply to the states — or were incorporated against them, in the legal jargon — under the 14th Amendment, one of the post-Civil War amendments.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for eight justices, said the question was an easy one. “The historical and logical case for concluding that the 14th Amendment incorporates the Excessive Fines Clause is overwhelming,” she wrote.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Well, the government will just have to ignore this one. Taking property is one of their favorites.
If it’s the IRS, no need to even prove the property was used in a crime. They just take it.
Translation:
Robbing citizens gets cops rich and they like it very much.
“Civil forfeiture is a popular way to raise revenue, and its use has been the subject of widespread criticism across the political spectrum.”
Widespread criticism by the same political scum who created it.
Forfeiture has gotten out of control.
It’s theft.
And if it’s the EPA no need to take it, just tell the owners what they can and cannot do with it and what improvements they must make on their dime.
El Chapo got to the court
That’s usually true of any government entity. It goes back to the days when they put people in jail because they needed road gangs.
When they built the Virginia Creeper railroad, they brought in black chain gangs. We don’t even have black people here in the hills. They buried them along the tracks where they fell dead.
So when they try to use Eminent domain to build a border wall on a transplanted CA Rat’s land on the Tex/Mex border what then?
8-0. Who abstained?
...and what did they know about Hillary? /sarc>
Who didn’t vote is more interesting to me.
Did RBG’s staff write the opinion for her, giving the impression she was there? But she actually wasn’t, and therefore didn’t vote?
Or, was she there and one of theater justices absent from the bench?
Big mud puddle in the drive? Your yard is now a wetland.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for eight justices, said the question was an easy one.
...
So easy that her clerks could write the opinion.
Yep. What a coincidence not implying that Ted Cruz wanted it used for the wall.
Quite so.
Bingo!
All of the justices voted. The majority opinion was 8-0. Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion.
Does this nullify the Clintonista law where if the cops find you in possession of $10K or more they can claim it’s drug money and they keep it until you can prove otherwise?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.