Supreme Court rules 8th Amendment applies to states

[miketx]

And Ginsberg wrote the reason.

"For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history," wrote Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the opinion. "Excessive fines can be used, for example, to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies," she wrote, or can become sources of revenue disconnected from the criminal justice system.

Many states claim stuff can be taken for being involved in a crime – without any proof. This is a real win for our Republic.

Much more @ Supreme Court Delivers Unanimous Victory for Asset Forfeiture Challenge

If this is what it appears to be then it's a major win for civil rights. No doubt this was always supported by corrupt politicians and high ranking libercrat cops. Maybe Ginsburg is trying to avoid hell. Or maybe she took up Pascal on his wager.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The historic uprising in Ferguson shone a light on civil asset forfeiture — a controversial practice of police seizing property that belongs to people suspected of crimes. “Ferguson was using the justice system to raise revenue,” explains retired judge Lisa Foster.

 

[miketx]

This is a major win for rights and crickets?

 

[Soupnazi630]

And Ginsberg wrote the reason.

"For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history," wrote Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the opinion. "Excessive fines can be used, for example, to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies," she wrote, or can become sources of revenue disconnected from the criminal justice system.

Many states claim stuff can be taken for being involved in a crime – without any proof. This is a real win for our Republic.

Much more @ Supreme Court Delivers Unanimous Victory for Asset Forfeiture Challenge

Sounds like a major decision moving in the right direction

We need more of this however

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Haven't read it but if I remember correctly they cant confiscate a known drug dealers property?
I mean if they cant show a means of income and they live in a nice house and drive high end cars I say you take their shit if convicted.
This bullshit of pulling people over on I-10 between Florida and California and seizing peoples money is bullshit.
Although I will say that when they seize a large lump sum of cash it probably is drug money.
But ya cant prove it.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Haven't read it but if I remember correctly they cant confiscate a known drug dealers property?
I mean if they cant show a means of income and they live in a nice house and drive high end cars I say you take their shit if convicted.
This bullshit of pulling people over on I-10 between Florida and California and seizing peoples money is bullshit.
Although I will say that when they seize a large lump sum of cash it probably is drug money.
But ya cant prove it.

That is why we need more decisions like this.

Any amount of cash found in someone's car or on ones person can be seized on the pretext that it MIGHT be illegally obtained.

The fact is it may not be drug money or illegal money at all.

Some people have good reason for using cash rather than other forms of payment.

It is perfectly legal to do so but the states have essentially been stealing large sums for years and it is unacceptable.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

And Ginsberg wrote the reason.

"For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history," wrote Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the opinion. "Excessive fines can be used, for example, to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies," she wrote, or can become sources of revenue disconnected from the criminal justice system.

Many states claim stuff can be taken for being involved in a crime – without any proof. This is a real win for our Republic.

Much more @ Supreme Court Delivers Unanimous Victory for Asset Forfeiture Challenge

it was being abused. Good time for RGB to go out on top and save her legacy. Retire now!

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Haven't read it but if I remember correctly they cant confiscate a known drug dealers property?
I mean if they cant show a means of income and they live in a nice house and drive high end cars I say you take their shit if convicted.
This bullshit of pulling people over on I-10 between Florida and California and seizing peoples money is bullshit.
Although I will say that when they seize a large lump sum of cash it probably is drug money.
But ya cant prove it.

That is why we need more decisions like this.

Any amount of cash found in someone's car or on ones person can be seized on the pretext that it MIGHT be illegally obtained.

The fact is it may not be drug money or illegal money at all.

Some people have good reason for using cash rather than other forms of payment.

It is perfectly legal to do so but the states have essentially been stealing large sums for years and it is unacceptable.

Me personally? I would never travel with large sums of money if I was engaging in a legitimate transaction.
I want a paper trail in those instances.

 

[OnePercenter]

I'm sure the Koch Brothers will be happy!

 

[Soupnazi630]

Haven't read it but if I remember correctly they cant confiscate a known drug dealers property?
I mean if they cant show a means of income and they live in a nice house and drive high end cars I say you take their shit if convicted.
This bullshit of pulling people over on I-10 between Florida and California and seizing peoples money is bullshit.
Although I will say that when they seize a large lump sum of cash it probably is drug money.
But ya cant prove it.

That is why we need more decisions like this.

Any amount of cash found in someone's car or on ones person can be seized on the pretext that it MIGHT be illegally obtained.

The fact is it may not be drug money or illegal money at all.

Some people have good reason for using cash rather than other forms of payment.

It is perfectly legal to do so but the states have essentially been stealing large sums for years and it is unacceptable.

Me personally? I would never travel with large sums of money if I was engaging in a legitimate transaction.
I want a paper trail in those instances.

That may well be true and wise.

However others will still have valid reasons for not wanting a paper trail and for using large sums of cash

I have done so myself and not doe anything illegal.

I simply find that in certain select circumstances it is best to use cash and leave no record

Either way as long as the money is legal tender for all debts public and private the state should be banned from seizing or before one is convicted

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Haven't read it but if I remember correctly they cant confiscate a known drug dealers property?
I mean if they cant show a means of income and they live in a nice house and drive high end cars I say you take their shit if convicted.
This bullshit of pulling people over on I-10 between Florida and California and seizing peoples money is bullshit.
Although I will say that when they seize a large lump sum of cash it probably is drug money.
But ya cant prove it.

That is why we need more decisions like this.

Any amount of cash found in someone's car or on ones person can be seized on the pretext that it MIGHT be illegally obtained.

The fact is it may not be drug money or illegal money at all.

Some people have good reason for using cash rather than other forms of payment.

It is perfectly legal to do so but the states have essentially been stealing large sums for years and it is unacceptable.

Me personally? I would never travel with large sums of money if I was engaging in a legitimate transaction.
I want a paper trail in those instances.

That may well be true and wise.

However others will still have valid reasons for not wanting a paper trail and for using large sums of cash

I have done so myself and not doe anything illegal.

I simply find that in certain select circumstances it is best to use cash and leave no record

Either way as long as the money is legal tender for all debts public and private the state should be banned from seizing or before one is convicted

I cant conceive of a situation where large sums of money need to be in cash for a transaction.
Maybe you can enlighten me.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Haven't read it but if I remember correctly they cant confiscate a known drug dealers property?
I mean if they cant show a means of income and they live in a nice house and drive high end cars I say you take their shit if convicted.
This bullshit of pulling people over on I-10 between Florida and California and seizing peoples money is bullshit.
Although I will say that when they seize a large lump sum of cash it probably is drug money.
But ya cant prove it.

That is why we need more decisions like this.

Any amount of cash found in someone's car or on ones person can be seized on the pretext that it MIGHT be illegally obtained.

The fact is it may not be drug money or illegal money at all.

Some people have good reason for using cash rather than other forms of payment.

It is perfectly legal to do so but the states have essentially been stealing large sums for years and it is unacceptable.

Me personally? I would never travel with large sums of money if I was engaging in a legitimate transaction.
I want a paper trail in those instances.

That may well be true and wise.

However others will still have valid reasons for not wanting a paper trail and for using large sums of cash

I have done so myself and not doe anything illegal.

I simply find that in certain select circumstances it is best to use cash and leave no record

Either way as long as the money is legal tender for all debts public and private the state should be banned from seizing or before one is convicted

I cant conceive of a situation where large sums of money need to be in cash for a transaction.
Maybe you can enlighten me.

Cash transactions with no paper trail are more confidential and discreet.

Let's say for example you are under a legit threat of a law suit. Meaning none has been filed against you but it probably will be by someone.

A paper trail leaves something doe the courts to look at and establish how much money you have and therefore how much they can take.

Cash leaves no such record.

The same might be true for people facing divorce.

Granted this is all a little dishonest as what you are doing is hiding your money from the government. But that would imply that the government should be allowed to know everything about you.

Another reason might be the need to get a transaction accomplished very quickly.

Checks take time to process and credit/ debit cards often charge large fees and banks often have funny restrictions on electronic transfers.

The point is some have found they can save a few dollars and get business done faster but laying cash.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Haven't read it but if I remember correctly they cant confiscate a known drug dealers property?
I mean if they cant show a means of income and they live in a nice house and drive high end cars I say you take their shit if convicted.
This bullshit of pulling people over on I-10 between Florida and California and seizing peoples money is bullshit.
Although I will say that when they seize a large lump sum of cash it probably is drug money.
But ya cant prove it.

That is why we need more decisions like this.

Any amount of cash found in someone's car or on ones person can be seized on the pretext that it MIGHT be illegally obtained.

The fact is it may not be drug money or illegal money at all.

Some people have good reason for using cash rather than other forms of payment.

It is perfectly legal to do so but the states have essentially been stealing large sums for years and it is unacceptable.

Me personally? I would never travel with large sums of money if I was engaging in a legitimate transaction.
I want a paper trail in those instances.

That may well be true and wise.

However others will still have valid reasons for not wanting a paper trail and for using large sums of cash

I have done so myself and not doe anything illegal.

I simply find that in certain select circumstances it is best to use cash and leave no record

Either way as long as the money is legal tender for all debts public and private the state should be banned from seizing or before one is convicted

I cant conceive of a situation where large sums of money need to be in cash for a transaction.
Maybe you can enlighten me.

Cash transactions with no paper trail are more confidential and discreet.

Let's say for example you are under a legit threat of a law suit. Meaning none has been filed against you but it probably will be by someone.

A paper trail leaves something doe the courts to look at and establish how much money you have and therefore how much they can take.

Cash leaves no such record.

The same might be true for people facing divorce.

Granted this is all a little dishonest as what you are doing is hiding your money from the government. But that would imply that the government should be allowed to know everything about you.

Another reason might be the need to get a transaction accomplished very quickly.

Checks take time to process and credit/ debit cards often charge large fees and banks often have funny restrictions on electronic transfers.

The point is some have found they can save a few dollars and get business done faster but laying cash.

So when you're doing something nefarious or underhanded.

 

[Soupnazi630]

That is why we need more decisions like this.

Any amount of cash found in someone's car or on ones person can be seized on the pretext that it MIGHT be illegally obtained.

The fact is it may not be drug money or illegal money at all.

Some people have good reason for using cash rather than other forms of payment.

It is perfectly legal to do so but the states have essentially been stealing large sums for years and it is unacceptable.

Me personally? I would never travel with large sums of money if I was engaging in a legitimate transaction.
I want a paper trail in those instances.

That may well be true and wise.

However others will still have valid reasons for not wanting a paper trail and for using large sums of cash

I have done so myself and not doe anything illegal.

I simply find that in certain select circumstances it is best to use cash and leave no record

Either way as long as the money is legal tender for all debts public and private the state should be banned from seizing or before one is convicted

I cant conceive of a situation where large sums of money need to be in cash for a transaction.
Maybe you can enlighten me.

Cash transactions with no paper trail are more confidential and discreet.

Let's say for example you are under a legit threat of a law suit. Meaning none has been filed against you but it probably will be by someone.

A paper trail leaves something doe the courts to look at and establish how much money you have and therefore how much they can take.

Cash leaves no such record.

The same might be true for people facing divorce.

Granted this is all a little dishonest as what you are doing is hiding your money from the government. But that would imply that the government should be allowed to know everything about you.

Another reason might be the need to get a transaction accomplished very quickly.

Checks take time to process and credit/ debit cards often charge large fees and banks often have funny restrictions on electronic transfers.

The point is some have found they can save a few dollars and get business done faster but laying cash.

So when you're doing something nefarious or underhanded.

Protecting ones property from those who would take it is not nefarious of underhanded.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Me personally? I would never travel with large sums of money if I was engaging in a legitimate transaction.
I want a paper trail in those instances.

That may well be true and wise.

However others will still have valid reasons for not wanting a paper trail and for using large sums of cash

I have done so myself and not doe anything illegal.

I simply find that in certain select circumstances it is best to use cash and leave no record

Either way as long as the money is legal tender for all debts public and private the state should be banned from seizing or before one is convicted

I cant conceive of a situation where large sums of money need to be in cash for a transaction.
Maybe you can enlighten me.

Cash transactions with no paper trail are more confidential and discreet.

Let's say for example you are under a legit threat of a law suit. Meaning none has been filed against you but it probably will be by someone.

A paper trail leaves something doe the courts to look at and establish how much money you have and therefore how much they can take.

Cash leaves no such record.

The same might be true for people facing divorce.

Granted this is all a little dishonest as what you are doing is hiding your money from the government. But that would imply that the government should be allowed to know everything about you.

Another reason might be the need to get a transaction accomplished very quickly.

Checks take time to process and credit/ debit cards often charge large fees and banks often have funny restrictions on electronic transfers.

The point is some have found they can save a few dollars and get business done faster but laying cash.

So when you're doing something nefarious or underhanded.

Protecting ones property from those who would take it is not nefarious of underhanded.

Cant say I've ever been in a situation like that.
You also run the risk of being robbed.

 

[Soupnazi630]

That may well be true and wise.

However others will still have valid reasons for not wanting a paper trail and for using large sums of cash

I have done so myself and not doe anything illegal.

I simply find that in certain select circumstances it is best to use cash and leave no record

Either way as long as the money is legal tender for all debts public and private the state should be banned from seizing or before one is convicted

I cant conceive of a situation where large sums of money need to be in cash for a transaction.
Maybe you can enlighten me.

Cash transactions with no paper trail are more confidential and discreet.

Let's say for example you are under a legit threat of a law suit. Meaning none has been filed against you but it probably will be by someone.

A paper trail leaves something doe the courts to look at and establish how much money you have and therefore how much they can take.

Cash leaves no such record.

The same might be true for people facing divorce.

Granted this is all a little dishonest as what you are doing is hiding your money from the government. But that would imply that the government should be allowed to know everything about you.

Another reason might be the need to get a transaction accomplished very quickly.

Checks take time to process and credit/ debit cards often charge large fees and banks often have funny restrictions on electronic transfers.

The point is some have found they can save a few dollars and get business done faster but laying cash.

So when you're doing something nefarious or underhanded.

Protecting ones property from those who would take it is not nefarious of underhanded.

Cant say I've ever been in a situation like that.
You also run the risk of being robbed.

Yes you do it is a choice.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Civil assets forfeiture was Jeff Session's pet concern and he just put himself on the sidelines while Donald Trump was being railroaded with a fake Russian collusion scam. At least Sessions had his priorities straight....municipalities simply taking cars, cash, land, etc. without due cause or purely on suspicion alone. He thought that was fine.

Of course the guy in the flashy car with a pocketful for cash is probably a drug dealer of some sort. But probably isn't reason enough. Police Theft So Out of Hand, State Just Passed a Law Banning Cops from Robbing Innocent People
Cops have been making a killing taking stuff just because they can.

 

[Pogo]

That is why we need more decisions like this.

Any amount of cash found in someone's car or on ones person can be seized on the pretext that it MIGHT be illegally obtained.

The fact is it may not be drug money or illegal money at all.

Some people have good reason for using cash rather than other forms of payment.

It is perfectly legal to do so but the states have essentially been stealing large sums for years and it is unacceptable.

Me personally? I would never travel with large sums of money if I was engaging in a legitimate transaction.
I want a paper trail in those instances.

That may well be true and wise.

However others will still have valid reasons for not wanting a paper trail and for using large sums of cash

I have done so myself and not doe anything illegal.

I simply find that in certain select circumstances it is best to use cash and leave no record

Either way as long as the money is legal tender for all debts public and private the state should be banned from seizing or before one is convicted

I cant conceive of a situation where large sums of money need to be in cash for a transaction.
Maybe you can enlighten me.

Cash transactions with no paper trail are more confidential and discreet.

Let's say for example you are under a legit threat of a law suit. Meaning none has been filed against you but it probably will be by someone.

A paper trail leaves something doe the courts to look at and establish how much money you have and therefore how much they can take.

Cash leaves no such record.

The same might be true for people facing divorce.

Granted this is all a little dishonest as what you are doing is hiding your money from the government. But that would imply that the government should be allowed to know everything about you.

Another reason might be the need to get a transaction accomplished very quickly.

Checks take time to process and credit/ debit cards often charge large fees and banks often have funny restrictions on electronic transfers.

The point is some have found they can save a few dollars and get business done faster but laying cash.

So when you're doing something nefarious or underhanded.

You're actually sitting here telling us monetary currency is "nefarious or underhanded"?

I got a C-note here that says you're full of shit.

 

[Pogo]

Haven't read it but if I remember correctly they cant confiscate a known drug dealers property?
I mean if they cant show a means of income and they live in a nice house and drive high end cars I say you take their shit if convicted.
This bullshit of pulling people over on I-10 between Florida and California and seizing peoples money is bullshit.
Although I will say that when they seize a large lump sum of cash it probably is drug money.
But ya cant prove it.

That is why we need more decisions like this.

Any amount of cash found in someone's car or on ones person can be seized on the pretext that it MIGHT be illegally obtained.

The fact is it may not be drug money or illegal money at all.

Some people have good reason for using cash rather than other forms of payment.

It is perfectly legal to do so but the states have essentially been stealing large sums for years and it is unacceptable.

Me personally? I would never travel with large sums of money if I was engaging in a legitimate transaction.
I want a paper trail in those instances.

That may well be true and wise.

However others will still have valid reasons for not wanting a paper trail and for using large sums of cash

I have done so myself and not doe anything illegal.

I simply find that in certain select circumstances it is best to use cash and leave no record

Either way as long as the money is legal tender for all debts public and private the state should be banned from seizing or before one is convicted

I cant conceive of a situation where large sums of money need to be in cash for a transaction.
Maybe you can enlighten me.

Cash transactions with no paper trail are more confidential and discreet.

Let's say for example you are under a legit threat of a law suit. Meaning none has been filed against you but it probably will be by someone.

A paper trail leaves something doe the courts to look at and establish how much money you have and therefore how much they can take.

Cash leaves no such record.

The same might be true for people facing divorce.

Granted this is all a little dishonest as what you are doing is hiding your money from the government. But that would imply that the government should be allowed to know everything about you.

Another reason might be the need to get a transaction accomplished very quickly.

Checks take time to process and credit/ debit cards often charge large fees and banks often have funny restrictions on electronic transfers.

The point is some have found they can save a few dollars and get business done faster but laying cash.

Just to cite a tiny little other example, some gas stations, and various other businesses, either give a discount for paying cash, or require a minimum amount for a card. And they do that because the card companies gouge them for the service of credit/debit cards, which increases the merchant's cost, which increases prices.

 

[mudwhistle]

Who's down with RBG?....EVERYbody!!!

Is she really coherent...or is her staff doing all of her thinking for her?
The other day she had to be helped by a staff member just to be able to walk through an airport terminal.
When the cameras are off I guarantee she's in a wheelchair.