Supreme Court rules 8th Amendment applies to states

[sakinago]

Supreme Court says constitutional protection against excessive fines applies to state actions


Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, on just her second day back on the bench after undergoing cancer surgery in December, announced the decision for the court, saying that the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause protects against government retribution.

“For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history: Exorbitant tolls undermine other constitutional liberties,” Ginsburg wrote. “Excessive fines can be used, for example, to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies. . . . Even absent a political motive, fines may be employed in a measure out of accord with the penal goals of retribution and deterrence.”

The court ruled in favor of Tyson Timbs of Marion, Ind., who had his $42,000 Land Rover seized after he was arrested for selling a couple hundred dollars’ worth of heroin.


The cops have been totally out of control with their literal highway robbery in the name of "civil asset forfeiture". It's great to see all the Supremes give them a kick in the nuts.

Is the left finally paying attention to civil asset forfeit seizure?

"finally"?

Yes finally, I’ve been raggin on this for a while. No one on the left seemed to care, despite it being an issue that all sides should agree on (unless you blindly trust LE so much). It’s also unconstitutional for different reason other than excessive fines, which is a tougher case to make...which tells me RBG is not of fan of property rights and LE over reach...criminal justice reform is the political flavor of choice. Ruling against CAFS on the grounds of excessive fines ain’t gonna do shit for property rights, or address what is actually wrong with CAFS. They’ll still seize the property, but maybe give some back.

 

[Pogo]

Supreme Court says constitutional protection against excessive fines applies to state actions


Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, on just her second day back on the bench after undergoing cancer surgery in December, announced the decision for the court, saying that the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause protects against government retribution.

“For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history: Exorbitant tolls undermine other constitutional liberties,” Ginsburg wrote. “Excessive fines can be used, for example, to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies. . . . Even absent a political motive, fines may be employed in a measure out of accord with the penal goals of retribution and deterrence.”

The court ruled in favor of Tyson Timbs of Marion, Ind., who had his $42,000 Land Rover seized after he was arrested for selling a couple hundred dollars’ worth of heroin.


The cops have been totally out of control with their literal highway robbery in the name of "civil asset forfeiture". It's great to see all the Supremes give them a kick in the nuts.

Is the left finally paying attention to civil asset forfeit seizure?

"finally"?

Yes finally, I’ve been raggin on this for a while. No one on the left seemed to care, despite it being an issue that all sides should agree on (unless you blindly trust LE so much). It’s also unconstitutional for different reason other than excessive fines, which is a tougher case to make...which tells me RBG is not of fan of property rights and LE over reach...criminal justice reform is the political flavor of choice. Ruling against CAFS on the grounds of excessive fines ain’t gonna do shit for property rights, or address what is actually wrong with CAFS. They’ll still seize the property, but maybe give some back.

I see --- so now you have a "no one on the left seemed to care" based on ..... absolutely nothing beyond your own cherrypicking, and then you actually try to convince the board that RBG meant the opposite of what her legal opinion said.

You're a piece of work, Winston.

 

[sakinago]

Supreme Court says constitutional protection against excessive fines applies to state actions


Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, on just her second day back on the bench after undergoing cancer surgery in December, announced the decision for the court, saying that the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause protects against government retribution.

“For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history: Exorbitant tolls undermine other constitutional liberties,” Ginsburg wrote. “Excessive fines can be used, for example, to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies. . . . Even absent a political motive, fines may be employed in a measure out of accord with the penal goals of retribution and deterrence.”

The court ruled in favor of Tyson Timbs of Marion, Ind., who had his $42,000 Land Rover seized after he was arrested for selling a couple hundred dollars’ worth of heroin.


The cops have been totally out of control with their literal highway robbery in the name of "civil asset forfeiture". It's great to see all the Supremes give them a kick in the nuts.

Is the left finally paying attention to civil asset forfeit seizure?

That statement is as general and meaningless as a Horoscope or the scrawl on the back of a fortune cookie.

First of all " Fining " is not a constitutional liberty. It is the action of penal code. For her to say " Other liberties " smells like the work of an understudy.

Secondly, we are not talking about political retaliation or even free speech. We're talking about using the penal code to discourage bad behavior. Sure the guy only sold 200 bucks worth of class A but he's still part by choice of a national epidemic. The laws are strong because they need to be. Do they get abused? Certainly. Take them away though and watch what happens.

Jo

Right because the BOR’s should take a back seat to fighting the drug war, American citizen or not. Whether your actually convicted or not. Fuck that. No thanks. People who trade liberty for security deserve and get neither.

 

[sakinago]

Supreme Court says constitutional protection against excessive fines applies to state actions


Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, on just her second day back on the bench after undergoing cancer surgery in December, announced the decision for the court, saying that the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause protects against government retribution.

“For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history: Exorbitant tolls undermine other constitutional liberties,” Ginsburg wrote. “Excessive fines can be used, for example, to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies. . . . Even absent a political motive, fines may be employed in a measure out of accord with the penal goals of retribution and deterrence.”

The court ruled in favor of Tyson Timbs of Marion, Ind., who had his $42,000 Land Rover seized after he was arrested for selling a couple hundred dollars’ worth of heroin.


The cops have been totally out of control with their literal highway robbery in the name of "civil asset forfeiture". It's great to see all the Supremes give them a kick in the nuts.

Is the left finally paying attention to civil asset forfeit seizure?

"finally"?

Yes finally, I’ve been raggin on this for a while. No one on the left seemed to care, despite it being an issue that all sides should agree on (unless you blindly trust LE so much). It’s also unconstitutional for different reason other than excessive fines, which is a tougher case to make...which tells me RBG is not of fan of property rights and LE over reach...criminal justice reform is the political flavor of choice. Ruling against CAFS on the grounds of excessive fines ain’t gonna do shit for property rights, or address what is actually wrong with CAFS. They’ll still seize the property, but maybe give some back.

I see --- so now you have a "no one on the left seemed to care" based on ..... absolutely nothing beyond your own cherrypicking, and then you actually try to convince the board that RBG meant the opposite of what her legal opinion said.

You're a piece of work, Winston.

Did she not cite excessive fines? And sure my evidence of no one on the left caring is anecdotal...I’m not allowed to speak in hyperbole? Stop, don’t be silly.

 

[g5000]

Yes finally, I’ve been raggin on this for a while. No one on the left seemed to care

Horseshit.

In many cities all over our country, the incentives for policing are upside down. Departments are bringing in substantial sums of revenue by seizing the personal property of people who are suspected of criminal involvement. So-called civil asset forfeiture laws allow police to take property from people even before they are charged with a crime, much less convicted of one. Even worse, the system works in a way that make it nearly impossible for an innocent person to get her property back. We must end programs that not only permit, but actually reward officials for seizing assets without a criminal conviction or other lawful mandate. Departments and officers should not profit off of such seizures. - Bernie Sanders, 2015.

 

[g5000]

Yes finally, I’ve been raggin on this for a while. No one on the left seemed to care

Asset Forfeiture Abuse

 

[g5000]

Yes finally, I’ve been raggin on this for a while. No one on the left seemed to care

AG Holder tackles civil forfeiture - Rachel Maddow Show, 2015

 

[justoffal]

Supreme Court says constitutional protection against excessive fines applies to state actions


Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, on just her second day back on the bench after undergoing cancer surgery in December, announced the decision for the court, saying that the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause protects against government retribution.

“For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history: Exorbitant tolls undermine other constitutional liberties,” Ginsburg wrote. “Excessive fines can be used, for example, to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies. . . . Even absent a political motive, fines may be employed in a measure out of accord with the penal goals of retribution and deterrence.”

The court ruled in favor of Tyson Timbs of Marion, Ind., who had his $42,000 Land Rover seized after he was arrested for selling a couple hundred dollars’ worth of heroin.


The cops have been totally out of control with their literal highway robbery in the name of "civil asset forfeiture". It's great to see all the Supremes give them a kick in the nuts.

Is the left finally paying attention to civil asset forfeit seizure?

That statement is as general and meaningless as a Horoscope or the scrawl on the back of a fortune cookie.

First of all " Fining " is not a constitutional liberty. It is the action of penal code. For her to say " Other liberties " smells like the work of an understudy.

Secondly, we are not talking about political retaliation or even free speech. We're talking about using the penal code to discourage bad behavior. Sure the guy only sold 200 bucks worth of class A but he's still part by choice of a national epidemic. The laws are strong because they need to be. Do they get abused? Certainly. Take them away though and watch what happens.

Jo

Right because the BOR’s should take a back seat to fighting the drug war, American citizen or not. Whether your actually convicted or not. Fuck that. No thanks. People who trade liberty for security deserve and get neither.

I didn't say that abuse does not exist only that the written opinion is vacuous, highly non specific and largely irrelevant. It sounds more like a revival meeting lyric than a real informed political opinion. As far as the war on drugs is concerned....all I can say is there is more than one way to lose property. The cemetery can take it from you also.

Jo

 

[justoffal]

Yes finally, I’ve been raggin on this for a while. No one on the left seemed to care

Horseshit.

In many cities all over our country, the incentives for policing are upside down. Departments are bringing in substantial sums of revenue by seizing the personal property of people who are suspected of criminal involvement. So-called civil asset forfeiture laws allow police to take property from people even before they are charged with a crime, much less convicted of one. Even worse, the system works in a way that make it nearly impossible for an innocent person to get her property back. We must end programs that not only permit, but actually reward officials for seizing assets without a criminal conviction or other lawful mandate. Departments and officers should not profit off of such seizures. - Bernie Sanders, 2015.

Shit....Sanders' opinion sounds more like what should be coming from SCOTUS ....
The SCOTUS opinion I read in the op sounds like a clerk who turned in a failed Term paper.
It's nearly 100 percent soft pedalled patronage. Can't believe it's supposed to be
a technical opinion rendered by the highest court. In short it sucks and I'm really kinda shocked.

Jo

 

[sakinago]

Yes finally, I’ve been raggin on this for a while. No one on the left seemed to care

AG Holder tackles civil forfeiture - Rachel Maddow Show, 2015

MK words are fine and dandy...buuuuut actions speak louder.

Civil Asset Forfeiture Skyrocketed Under Obama

Not that this was ordered from Obama himself, but his administration, including his AG Holder, played a role. This isn’t just a state issue, it’s absolutely an incestuous relationship with the feds. The feds are getting their slice of pie

 

[Marion Morrison]

Idk man, but taking some guy's Hummer because he has a roach in the ashtray is against the 4th amendment.

Idk what the 8th even says.

 

[g5000]

Yes finally, I’ve been raggin on this for a while. No one on the left seemed to care

AG Holder tackles civil forfeiture - Rachel Maddow Show, 2015

MK words are fine and dandy...buuuuut actions speak louder.

Civil Asset Forfeiture Skyrocketed Under Obama

Not that this was ordered from Obama himself, but his administration, including his AG Holder, played a role. This isn’t just a state issue, it’s absolutely an incestuous relationship with the feds. The feds are getting their slice of pie

The point is that your claim that "no one on the left seemed to care" is false. You made it up.

 

[justoffal]

Yes finally, I’ve been raggin on this for a while. No one on the left seemed to care

AG Holder tackles civil forfeiture - Rachel Maddow Show, 2015

MK words are fine and dandy...buuuuut actions speak louder.

Civil Asset Forfeiture Skyrocketed Under Obama

Not that this was ordered from Obama himself, but his administration, including his AG Holder, played a role. This isn’t just a state issue, it’s absolutely an incestuous relationship with the feds. The feds are getting their slice of pie

BINGO! BA-DA-BINGO!

JO

 

[sakinago]

Yes finally, I’ve been raggin on this for a while. No one on the left seemed to care

AG Holder tackles civil forfeiture - Rachel Maddow Show, 2015

MK words are fine and dandy...buuuuut actions speak louder.

Civil Asset Forfeiture Skyrocketed Under Obama

Not that this was ordered from Obama himself, but his administration, including his AG Holder, played a role. This isn’t just a state issue, it’s absolutely an incestuous relationship with the feds. The feds are getting their slice of pie

The point is that your claim that "no one on the left seemed to care" is false. You made it up.

Jesus Christ, it’s a fucking hyperbole. Good job, you disproved an hyperbole. Print out the convo and put it on your fridge.

Point is, this shit skyrocketed under Obama. I was ringing the bell then about it. Few on the left gave a fuck about it then. It really seems like it’s good because RBG is back and isn’t dead with Trump and gop senate so yaaaayyy cheer RBG. If it makes the left pay attention to this more, that’s a good thing...but I worry it’s only as long as it’s in vogue for them.

 

[Timmy]

I think it was unanimous too. Far too long many states law enforcement has been stealing people’s property with these overreaching forfeit laws in order to subsidize their budgets .

Total scam .

Supreme Court strikes blow against states that raise revenue by hefty fines, forfeitures

Guy got busted wh heroine and they took his $40k truck .

 

[beagle9]

I think it was unanimous too. Far too long many states law enforcement has been stealing people’s property with these overreaching forfeit laws in order to subsidize their budgets .

Total scam .

Supreme Court strikes blow against states that raise revenue by hefty fines, forfeitures

Guy got busted wh heroine and they took his $40k truck .

How did he buy that $40k truck ? Selling heroin ?

 

[Fueri]

This started as a means to hit drug trafficking and morphed into a montrosity of overreach, if you can even be so kind as to call it that. This is/was theft undertaken by cops, IMO.

A cop in Kane County, IL, where I happen to live, was quoted:

"The officer who initiated the stop once described asset forfeiture as "a tax-liberating gold mine" that allows the government to "pull in expendable cash hand over fist," according to a complaint filed in U.S. District Court. The officer, a sergeant, also works for Desert Snow, a private company that trains officers in police stops and asset forfeiture, according to the lawsuit. The Kane County sheriff's office is among agencies that have paid Desert Snow for training."

It would seem they knew damn well what they were doing and were actively training to do it. I'd say it's unbelievable, but there's no such thing in this world when it comes to abuse of power or greed, which both came together, in this case, to wreak havoc on people's lives while hiding behind the badge and the law.

These people should be prosecuted. They won't be of course.

Just following the law, wink, wink. Just doing what we were told, wink, wink.

Blech.....

 

[skews13]

I don't mind a person's car being forfeited if they were selling drugs out of that car when arrested or whatever.

What I DO mind is that if the person is found not guilty they don't immediately, if ever, get their property back. That is some BS

Not anymore they can't. This is an especially bad ruling for states like Florida who are big on drug stings that include the forfeiture of cars for small amounts of drugs. Now Floridians can buy all of the small amounts of drugs they want, and all of those little one horse towns just lost a big source of revenue.

 

[Pogo]

Supreme Court says constitutional protection against excessive fines applies to state actions


Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, on just her second day back on the bench after undergoing cancer surgery in December, announced the decision for the court, saying that the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause protects against government retribution.

“For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history: Exorbitant tolls undermine other constitutional liberties,” Ginsburg wrote. “Excessive fines can be used, for example, to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies. . . . Even absent a political motive, fines may be employed in a measure out of accord with the penal goals of retribution and deterrence.”

The court ruled in favor of Tyson Timbs of Marion, Ind., who had his $42,000 Land Rover seized after he was arrested for selling a couple hundred dollars’ worth of heroin.


The cops have been totally out of control with their literal highway robbery in the name of "civil asset forfeiture". It's great to see all the Supremes give them a kick in the nuts.

Is the left finally paying attention to civil asset forfeit seizure?

"finally"?

Yes finally, I’ve been raggin on this for a while. No one on the left seemed to care, despite it being an issue that all sides should agree on (unless you blindly trust LE so much). It’s also unconstitutional for different reason other than excessive fines, which is a tougher case to make...which tells me RBG is not of fan of property rights and LE over reach...criminal justice reform is the political flavor of choice. Ruling against CAFS on the grounds of excessive fines ain’t gonna do shit for property rights, or address what is actually wrong with CAFS. They’ll still seize the property, but maybe give some back.

I see --- so now you have a "no one on the left seemed to care" based on ..... absolutely nothing beyond your own cherrypicking, and then you actually try to convince the board that RBG meant the opposite of what her legal opinion said.

You're a piece of work, Winston.

Did she not cite excessive fines? And sure my evidence of no one on the left caring is anecdotal...I’m not allowed to speak in hyperbole? Stop, don’t be silly.

You didn't mention "any one on the left". You said "the left". The whole thing, as if it's some kind of Borg unit.

"One" / "the collective". Know the difference.

 

[Pogo]

I don't mind a person's car being forfeited if they were selling drugs out of that car when arrested or whatever.

What I DO mind is that if the person is found not guilty they don't immediately, if ever, get their property back. That is some BS

Not anymore they can't. This is an especially bad ruling for states like Florida who are big on drug stings that include the forfeiture of cars for small amounts of drugs. Now Floridians can buy all of the small amounts of drugs they want, and all of those little one horse towns just lost a big source of revenue.

A big source of ILLEGAL revenue.

Basically you're saying "what? You're going to cut off our community chest by making us follow the law?"