3 ms·

The fact that the Supreme Court is taking up this case is good news. The Court could have ignored it, but chose to consider it. The facts of the two related cas

The fact that the Supreme Court is taking up this case is good news. The Court could have ignored it, but chose to consider it. The facts of the two related cases are reasonably favorable to striking down or curtailing civil asset forfeiture (CAF). Surprisingly, part of the the right wing of the Supreme Court is skeptical of CAF: "Conservative U.S. Supreme Court justice Neil Gorsuch criticized asset forfeiture as an “extravagant punishment” in a 2018 decision. Justice Clarence Thomas said outright in a 2017 case that modern civil forfeiture schemes are likely unconstitutional." From: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/south-carolina-supreme-court-drops-ball-asset-forfeiture-reform-2022-09-22/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/south-carolina-supr...

hermitdev 3y ago
The text of the 5th Amendment is fairly clear: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." [0] The weaseling is always "but it's _civil_, not _criminal_.". Except, the premise is that a crime has been committed. But, people are being deprived of their property without due process. That private property is being taken for public use without _any_, let alone _just_, compensation. It should be a 9-0 ruling striking it down, but we'll see... [0] https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript#toc-amendment-v https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transc...
cvoss 3y ago
Is it that surprising? One of the Constitution's major objectives is to restrict the powers of the government and its various entities. Being an originalist gets you there. So does not being an originalist.
kmeisthax 3y ago
The thing about right-wing politics is that half the time, right-wingers will very justifiably fear government power, but the other half of the time they'll shout about their thin blue lines. Much of the time you'll even see the "no step on snek" and "thin blue line" flags in the same place. Furthermore, a lot of the worry about government overreach is specifically about gun confiscation. While not everyone who owns a gun is a tyrant in waiting, obviously, a lot of people have specific fantasies about seizing power from governments they think are oppressive, while still saying we need to ignore power abuses of local police officers when they aren't targeted at them[0]. I call this mentality "no stop snek from stepping on other snek". It is not an ideology, but the consequence of right-wing outrage perverting that ideology. Right-libertarians do write long rants about police brutality, civil asset forfeiture, and so on; but right-wingers more broadly care solely for identity politics that benefit them. Think about how Louis Rossmann, who is very vaguely right-wing and very libertarian, got shat on by the right-wing half of his audience[2] for interviewing Sam Seder about right-to-repair. What SCOTUS decides will likely be informed by the calculus of who exactly is petitioning them and what benefits the people who put them there. They aren't yet willing to completely shit on the concept of stare decisis[1], but we have to at least present a case to right-wingers that not only civil asset forfeiture is bad and unconstitutional, but that it's bad and unconstitutional in ways that hurt the kinds of people they are sympathetic to. [0] Case in point: the relative lack of outrage in right-wing circles whenever black people get their guns confiscated or are summarily executed for having them [1] The overturn of Roe v. Wade is concerning me, though [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DR1AIsyzZ0&lc=UgxdShhyG9NmAX2LFSh4AaABAg.9Rd3MtKe7xj9Rd4S0tGK1d https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DR1AIsyzZ0&lc=UgxdShhyG9NmA...

hermitdev 3y ago

The text of the 5th Amendment is fairly clear: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." [0] The weaseling is always "but it's _civil_, not _criminal_.". Except, the premise is that a crime has been committed. But, people are being deprived of their property without due process. That private property is being taken for public use without _any_, let alone _just_, compensation. It should be a 9-0 ruling striking it down, but we'll see... [0] https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript#toc-amendment-v https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transc...

cvoss 3y ago

Is it that surprising? One of the Constitution's major objectives is to restrict the powers of the government and its various entities. Being an originalist gets you there. So does not being an originalist.

kmeisthax 3y ago

The thing about right-wing politics is that half the time, right-wingers will very justifiably fear government power, but the other half of the time they'll shout about their thin blue lines. Much of the time you'll even see the "no step on snek" and "thin blue line" flags in the same place. Furthermore, a lot of the worry about government overreach is specifically about gun confiscation. While not everyone who owns a gun is a tyrant in waiting, obviously, a lot of people have specific fantasies about seizing power from governments they think are oppressive, while still saying we need to ignore power abuses of local police officers when they aren't targeted at them[0]. I call this mentality "no stop snek from stepping on other snek". It is not an ideology, but the consequence of right-wing outrage perverting that ideology. Right-libertarians do write long rants about police brutality, civil asset forfeiture, and so on; but right-wingers more broadly care solely for identity politics that benefit them. Think about how Louis Rossmann, who is very vaguely right-wing and very libertarian, got shat on by the right-wing half of his audience[2] for interviewing Sam Seder about right-to-repair. What SCOTUS decides will likely be informed by the calculus of who exactly is petitioning them and what benefits the people who put them there. They aren't yet willing to completely shit on the concept of stare decisis[1], but we have to at least present a case to right-wingers that not only civil asset forfeiture is bad and unconstitutional, but that it's bad and unconstitutional in ways that hurt the kinds of people they are sympathetic to. [0] Case in point: the relative lack of outrage in right-wing circles whenever black people get their guns confiscated or are summarily executed for having them [1] The overturn of Roe v. Wade is concerning me, though [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DR1AIsyzZ0&lc=UgxdShhyG9NmAX2LFSh4AaABAg.9Rd3MtKe7xj9Rd4S0tGK1d https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DR1AIsyzZ0&lc=UgxdShhyG9NmA...