3 ms·

The Supremes don't roam the legal badlands like caped crusaders, looking for injustices to set right. Somebody has to appeal a verdict in a lower court to them

The Supremes don't roam the legal badlands like caped crusaders, looking for injustices to set right. Somebody has to appeal a verdict in a lower court to them and they have to agree to hear it. Which generally doesn't: according to [1] they receive over 7000 petitions per year, so something like 30 per working day. Do you know whether they have in fact refused to hear a case against CAF, or heard such a case and upheld it? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Case_selection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_St...

ghayes 6y ago
For context, there was a recent case on civil orfeiture in the Supreme Court (Timbs v Indiana 2019), but it was on whether or not the Eighth Amendment was incorporated (i.e., required to be upheld by the states and not just the federal government). [0] https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police/supreme-court-didnt-put-nail-civil-asset-forfeitures https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/reforming-poli...
gamblor956 6y ago
SCOTUS actually ruled on this in 2019. https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police/supreme-court-didnt-put-nail-civil-asset-forfeitures https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/reforming-poli... It ruled that civil asset forfeitures are subject to the 8th Amendment prohibition against excessive monetary fines. This doesn't mean that they necessarily violate the 8th Amendment, only that they are subject to it. Unfortunately, almost every state already has such a restriction on their books and it hasn't stopped CAFs yet. It's likely that another CAF case would result in the court deeming federal CAFs to violate the Sixth Amendment where the CAF is not actually related to a criminal conviction. (This is conjecture based on certain justices' remarks to the Federalist Society before they were appointed to SCOTUS.)
syshum 6y ago
"The Supremes" have long since failed the People of the United States and have proven all of Jefferson's fears about what the court would become to be true. "The Supreme's" can not be trusted to protect the constitution, and because of their failure the constitution has more exemptions, and holes than swiss cheese
Technically 6y ago
The court is a bit of a crutch compared to legislation, anyway. The only reason they play such a major role now is that our political parties have been in a dysfunctional deadlock for 40+ years.

ghayes 6y ago

For context, there was a recent case on civil orfeiture in the Supreme Court (Timbs v Indiana 2019), but it was on whether or not the Eighth Amendment was incorporated (i.e., required to be upheld by the states and not just the federal government). [0] https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police/supreme-court-didnt-put-nail-civil-asset-forfeitures https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/reforming-poli...

gamblor956 6y ago

SCOTUS actually ruled on this in 2019. https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police/supreme-court-didnt-put-nail-civil-asset-forfeitures https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/reforming-poli... It ruled that civil asset forfeitures are subject to the 8th Amendment prohibition against excessive monetary fines. This doesn't mean that they necessarily violate the 8th Amendment, only that they are subject to it. Unfortunately, almost every state already has such a restriction on their books and it hasn't stopped CAFs yet. It's likely that another CAF case would result in the court deeming federal CAFs to violate the Sixth Amendment where the CAF is not actually related to a criminal conviction. (This is conjecture based on certain justices' remarks to the Federalist Society before they were appointed to SCOTUS.)

syshum 6y ago

"The Supremes" have long since failed the People of the United States and have proven all of Jefferson's fears about what the court would become to be true. "The Supreme's" can not be trusted to protect the constitution, and because of their failure the constitution has more exemptions, and holes than swiss cheese

Technically 6y ago

The court is a bit of a crutch compared to legislation, anyway. The only reason they play such a major role now is that our political parties have been in a dysfunctional deadlock for 40+ years.