3 ms·

It's almost as if Thomas is saying, "If we reject the CO SC's ruling (which is what SCOTUS did) then we must also say the Exoneration Act is invalid". Which I

It's almost as if Thomas is saying, "If we reject the CO SC's ruling (which is what SCOTUS did) then we must also say the Exoneration Act is invalid". Which I think makes sense, even though SCOTUS didn't go that far. IANAL

protomyth 9y ago
He recently spoke out against civil asset forfeitures, so I wonder about the angle he took in his dissent. I'm trying to square that with this and think I just don't understand the laws to see the what it points to. I think there is a civil asset forfeiture case on the schedule, so I guess we will see then.
- astrocat 9y ago
  Justice Thomas is essentially arguing that the 14th Amendment (the "no depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" one) is the wrong reason to give the person a refund of their fees after an overturned conviction. Reading the dissent, it basically says: when the person was convicted, they paid their fine, and at that point the fine money is now property of the state. The overturning of the original conviction doesn't, however, mean that the fine money also reverts ownership - he claims it is still in ownership by the state so the person cannot claim it is their property being deprived without due process under the 14th amendment. He proposes that the "correct" way to get the money back is by invoking this other thing called "The Exoneration Act," NOT the 14th. The problem is the Exoneration Act isn't a law that says the state HAS to return funds, it's more of a specific appeal process for people to apply to get funds back. In other words, he recognizes there is no state law in Colorado that requires refunding these fees (nor does he offer a viable Federal one), but he claims there is a process available, at least. In that sense, his dissent isn't really about him believing these people are NOT owed a refund in the moral sense of what is just, he's simply arguing that the court should not establish that refunds of costs/fines in cases where convictions are overturned is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. It's kind of a pedantic dissent. And I still don't agree with him :)
  - pishpash 9y ago
    Is the null process an available process? Why should anyone appreciate this kind of fatuous pedantry?
    - cookiecaper 9y ago
      IANAL The intent behind Thomas's particular brands of "fatuous pedantry" (more commonly called textualism or originalism) are preserving a maximum amount of power to the people through their representative governments. If the people of Colorado did not see fit to provide such recourse to their exonerated ex-convicts, Thomas believes that the Constitution does not require them to do so. The Constitution merely requires equal protection under the law, and there is no law that is being applied unequally in this case; everyone is equally entitled to seek relief under the Colorado statute, which presumably represents the will of Coloradans as expressed through their state government. If Colorodans do not like this, they can enact change through their government. When the Supreme Court acts and rules a law either valid or invalid, it's an unelected branch of the federal government imposing its will on the people. This is especially sensitive when the will is being imposed on the states. The Constitution was carefully designed to limit the reach of federal power and allow more authority to more local governments. Disputes over the extent of state's rights are no trivial matter -- they've caused our only civil war thus far. Anyway, I've found that a great deal of judicial activity is based on highly technical issues that many would consider "fatuous pedantry". IMO it is totally reasonable to suggest a basic modernization/overhaul in our legal system. Until then, however, my experience is that "fatuous pedantry" and "law" go together so often they may as well be synonymous.

protomyth 9y ago

He recently spoke out against civil asset forfeitures, so I wonder about the angle he took in his dissent. I'm trying to square that with this and think I just don't understand the laws to see the what it points to. I think there is a civil asset forfeiture case on the schedule, so I guess we will see then.

astrocat 9y ago
Justice Thomas is essentially arguing that the 14th Amendment (the "no depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" one) is the wrong reason to give the person a refund of their fees after an overturned conviction. Reading the dissent, it basically says: when the person was convicted, they paid their fine, and at that point the fine money is now property of the state. The overturning of the original conviction doesn't, however, mean that the fine money also reverts ownership - he claims it is still in ownership by the state so the person cannot claim it is their property being deprived without due process under the 14th amendment. He proposes that the "correct" way to get the money back is by invoking this other thing called "The Exoneration Act," NOT the 14th. The problem is the Exoneration Act isn't a law that says the state HAS to return funds, it's more of a specific appeal process for people to apply to get funds back. In other words, he recognizes there is no state law in Colorado that requires refunding these fees (nor does he offer a viable Federal one), but he claims there is a process available, at least. In that sense, his dissent isn't really about him believing these people are NOT owed a refund in the moral sense of what is just, he's simply arguing that the court should not establish that refunds of costs/fines in cases where convictions are overturned is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. It's kind of a pedantic dissent. And I still don't agree with him :)
- pishpash 9y ago
  Is the null process an available process? Why should anyone appreciate this kind of fatuous pedantry?
  - cookiecaper 9y ago
    IANAL The intent behind Thomas's particular brands of "fatuous pedantry" (more commonly called textualism or originalism) are preserving a maximum amount of power to the people through their representative governments. If the people of Colorado did not see fit to provide such recourse to their exonerated ex-convicts, Thomas believes that the Constitution does not require them to do so. The Constitution merely requires equal protection under the law, and there is no law that is being applied unequally in this case; everyone is equally entitled to seek relief under the Colorado statute, which presumably represents the will of Coloradans as expressed through their state government. If Colorodans do not like this, they can enact change through their government. When the Supreme Court acts and rules a law either valid or invalid, it's an unelected branch of the federal government imposing its will on the people. This is especially sensitive when the will is being imposed on the states. The Constitution was carefully designed to limit the reach of federal power and allow more authority to more local governments. Disputes over the extent of state's rights are no trivial matter -- they've caused our only civil war thus far. Anyway, I've found that a great deal of judicial activity is based on highly technical issues that many would consider "fatuous pedantry". IMO it is totally reasonable to suggest a basic modernization/overhaul in our legal system. Until then, however, my experience is that "fatuous pedantry" and "law" go together so often they may as well be synonymous.