5 ms·

Clarence Thomas. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1256_5i36.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1256_5i36.pdf

wnevets 9y ago
I think we all knew this was the answer before reading a single thing about the case
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- alayne 9y ago
  It doesn't sound like he supports forfeiture in general. According to the article "And Justice Clarence Thomas (the lone dissenter in the Nelson decision) recently slammed civil forfeiture for its “egregious and well-chronicled abuses.”"
  - jbooth 9y ago
    Yeah, but he has a history of dumb contrarian lone dissents that throw some poor citizen under the bus. Generally when the question "who the heck dissented on that?!?!" is asked, the answer is Thomas.
    - zeveb 9y ago
      > Yeah, but he has a history of dumb contrarian lone dissents that throw some poor citizen under the bus. That's because he interprets the Constitution and the law according to what he believes them to mean, not according to what he wishes they would mean. In this case, he clearly states that he sees no constitutional requirement for the State to return property after it has been confiscated post-conviction (as an aside, the article title is misleading: this wasn't confiscation prior to or absent a conviction). The Constitution does not mandate all good things, nor does it forbid all bad things.
      - jbooth 9y ago
        Well, that's your opinion, and Thomas's, but very frequently it's not the opinion of 8 other Supreme Court justices, several of whom also claim to be textual originalists. The constitution does not mandate all good things, does not forbid all bad things, but VERY NOTABLY includes the 9th amendment. They put that one in for a reason.
burkaman 9y ago
Can someone with legal experience interpret the dissent? I don't really understand the distinction he's making between "substantive entitlements" and "procedural due process".
- otterley 9y ago
  Very briefly: * Procedural law is the body of law around how a case is heard and handled: how to petition a court, how cases are adjudicated, jurisdiction (i.e. does the Court have the authority to handle this case), etc. * Substantive law is basically everything else. Rights, remedies, criminal law, civil law, administrative law, etc.
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  What I'm gathering at a really brief read of it (and without legal experience), is that Thomas is suggesting that if the money collected is no longer the individual's property, there's no Constitutional or legal obligation for the government to return it. So, like, evidence collected generally remains property of the owner, and people can recollect it, but if fines or fees are paid or assets are seized, it assigns the property rights of something to the state, it's no longer the individual's property and hence they have no right to get it back... even if they were found innocent later of a court case. EDIT: cookiecaper's read on it is probably better than mine, go read that.
  - will_brown 9y ago
    Not sure why you were down voted, that is basically the entire second part of Thomas' legal dissent. 1. Colorado law doesn't provide for an automatic refund when convictions are overturned, rather Colorado law provides a process and the defendant's didn't attempt to use the process (Therefore, no Constitutional violation in application of this law); 2. The Defendants here already lost their property rights, and so the Due Process Clause of the Constitution does not apply (Colorado doesn't need to provide any process to refund, so we don't need to even look at the Colorado Law to determine if the process is Unconstitutional).
    - 9y ago

wnevets 9y ago

I think we all knew this was the answer before reading a single thing about the case

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
alayne 9y ago
It doesn't sound like he supports forfeiture in general. According to the article "And Justice Clarence Thomas (the lone dissenter in the Nelson decision) recently slammed civil forfeiture for its “egregious and well-chronicled abuses.”"
- jbooth 9y ago
  Yeah, but he has a history of dumb contrarian lone dissents that throw some poor citizen under the bus. Generally when the question "who the heck dissented on that?!?!" is asked, the answer is Thomas.
  - zeveb 9y ago
    > Yeah, but he has a history of dumb contrarian lone dissents that throw some poor citizen under the bus. That's because he interprets the Constitution and the law according to what he believes them to mean, not according to what he wishes they would mean. In this case, he clearly states that he sees no constitutional requirement for the State to return property after it has been confiscated post-conviction (as an aside, the article title is misleading: this wasn't confiscation prior to or absent a conviction). The Constitution does not mandate all good things, nor does it forbid all bad things.
    - jbooth 9y ago
      Well, that's your opinion, and Thomas's, but very frequently it's not the opinion of 8 other Supreme Court justices, several of whom also claim to be textual originalists. The constitution does not mandate all good things, does not forbid all bad things, but VERY NOTABLY includes the 9th amendment. They put that one in for a reason.

burkaman 9y ago

Can someone with legal experience interpret the dissent? I don't really understand the distinction he's making between "substantive entitlements" and "procedural due process".

otterley 9y ago
Very briefly: * Procedural law is the body of law around how a case is heard and handled: how to petition a court, how cases are adjudicated, jurisdiction (i.e. does the Court have the authority to handle this case), etc. * Substantive law is basically everything else. Rights, remedies, criminal law, civil law, administrative law, etc.
ocdtrekkie 9y ago
What I'm gathering at a really brief read of it (and without legal experience), is that Thomas is suggesting that if the money collected is no longer the individual's property, there's no Constitutional or legal obligation for the government to return it. So, like, evidence collected generally remains property of the owner, and people can recollect it, but if fines or fees are paid or assets are seized, it assigns the property rights of something to the state, it's no longer the individual's property and hence they have no right to get it back... even if they were found innocent later of a court case. EDIT: cookiecaper's read on it is probably better than mine, go read that.
- will_brown 9y ago
  Not sure why you were down voted, that is basically the entire second part of Thomas' legal dissent. 1. Colorado law doesn't provide for an automatic refund when convictions are overturned, rather Colorado law provides a process and the defendant's didn't attempt to use the process (Therefore, no Constitutional violation in application of this law); 2. The Defendants here already lost their property rights, and so the Due Process Clause of the Constitution does not apply (Colorado doesn't need to provide any process to refund, so we don't need to even look at the Colorado Law to determine if the process is Unconstitutional).
  - 9y ago