Scalia was conflicted about Wickard....
Posted on 03/18/2017 12:55:10 PM PDT by Ken H
They proclaim loudly that they respect the Constitution. Then they pass laws like this, being sure to give it a nice-sounding name, like Civil Asset Forfeiture.
There is no forfeiture in this at all. It’s seizure. This is theft and a violation of the Constitution.
IMO Clarence Thomas is one of the best Justices we’ve ever had - in some ways better than Scalia in faithfulness to the Constitution as written and originally understood and intended. We need four or five more just like him in the Suprme Court to steer our country back to being a Free Constitutional Republic where the Supreme Court does NOT unconstitutionally make national law and where their decisions ARE constitutionally based.
When Justice Thomas speaks one does well to listen!
“When Justice Thomas speaks one does well to listen!”
Remember what they did to him? This stuff with Trump is not new. The only new thing is fighting back.
“in some ways better than Scalia in faithfulness to the Constitution”
When Scalia put the “substantive effect” commerce test on steroids to fight the War on Pot, Thomas rightly called it a “rootless and malleable standard.”
Good Lord! I pray you reverse this! Amen.
No forfeiture without a conviction. But how do you prevent the real criminals from disposing of all their assets, leaving nothing to seize after conviction?
Rand Paul introduces the most sweeping reform of civil asset forfeiture law in decades
First you worry about following procedure and doing the right thing. The “real criminals” won’t have much left after the lawyers get through with them, anyway.
I’m surprised the Supreme Court hasn’t already struck this down. It seems like one of those issues where the conservatives, like Thomas, and ACLU Ginsburg would agree.
Beyond belief! Some bubba cops hit the gambling boat and whorehouse that night, you can be sure.
“But how do you prevent the real criminals from disposing of all their assets”
Freeze them - you don’t need civil forfeiture to do that.
God Bless Justice Thomas. He and Alito are the only sane ones left.
Scalia was conflicted about Wickard....
Damned straight.
It’s piracy under the rubric of givernment and it’s convoluted moral imperative and a conceit of imprimatur to enforce their deceit...
Wonder where Gorsuch falls ...
I have access neither to the data nor to the AlGoreRhythm, so am at a loss but would like to know.
Hear hear. It’s theft, it’s guilty until proven innocent, it’s rejection of due process, it’s usually unreasonable search and seizure both, it’s deprivation of rights under color of law, and it’s straight up corruption.
Interesting graphs. (Don’t know who Merrick B. Garlan is but it would interesting to see Judge Robert Bork’s anticipated place on the graph if he hadn’t been “borked” by Ted Kennedy’s demagoguery and lies. IMO, Bork was capable of having been one of the greatest justices on the Supreme Court.)
Although I usually agreed with Scalia’s decisions, I found myself disagreeing with his reasoning many times as often it seemed he would use something other than the Constitution as the basis for his decisions.
Thomas’ record shows reasoning more often based on the Constitution as originally understood and intended.
IMO, Scalia’s weakness was his rigid adherence to “textualism”. I agreed with his philosophy to the extent that the words and text of the Constitution should always be the starting place. But if there is ambiguity or a good-faith disagreement about the meaning of the word(s) in the context of a given clause, then original understanding of the use of the word(s) should come into play. And after that inquiry, if there is still good-faith reason(s) that the word(s) themselves in the context could be interpreted more than one way, then further inquiry into original intent should come into play.
Scalia rejected those further inquiries out of hand leading to what I believe were often flawed rationale and sometimes flawed decisions as in Gonzales v. Raich. The Commerce Clause (CC) is a good example of the need for good-faith inquiry of original intent which almost certainly was limited to removing hindrances to interstate commerce - nowhere near the sweeping powers the feds have assumed through misinterpretation, misuse, and misapplication of the CC.
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.