3 ms·

This is completely insane and if this holds then it gives the feds complete control over anyone and anything. You bow down or we take everything from you. This

This is completely insane and if this holds then it gives the feds complete control over anyone and anything. You bow down or we take everything from you. This case needs to be watched with intense scrutiny. > Before you run out and trade your USD for meme coins, let me reassure you: DOJ's argument is wrong. The Due Process Clause applies to "life, liberty, or property," and the Supreme Court has repeatedly applied that Clause to money. It follows that, since money is neither life nor liberty, it must be property. The government being obviously wrong has not stopped the Supreme Court from making utterly insane judgements.

bende511 2y ago
this is not an actual argument in the case. this argument is just an aside in a footnote. the government is actually arguing that the Department of Labor is allowed to issue fines and require companies to pay back wages when they steal from their employees and lie on visa applications
- walterbell 2y ago
  Did the footnote help their primary argument? Was the footnote necessary?
  - bende511 2y ago
    No, I don't think it helps the govt. I don't think it was necessary. Motions, especially early ones like this, often have a lot of things in them that aren't necessary because they throw all their arguments at the wall and hope some of them stick. That's how it goes. This is likely a case of one of the DoL lawyers with a bone to pick who found a place to basically go "and another thing!"
- autoexec 2y ago
  The argument isn't over who can issue fines, it's about who has the right to contest them in a real courtroom with a real judge or even a jury.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    we call those "appeals". If you don't like your judgement, you can contest them in a real court room. There's an entire process for this. But if the appeleate court rules the same, you're SoL. IDK how many appeals you think people deserve over crimes this open and shut (and so frivelous in the grand scheme of things. He was charged 16k for the offense and backpay).

bende511 2y ago

this is not an actual argument in the case. this argument is just an aside in a footnote. the government is actually arguing that the Department of Labor is allowed to issue fines and require companies to pay back wages when they steal from their employees and lie on visa applications

walterbell 2y ago
Did the footnote help their primary argument? Was the footnote necessary?
- bende511 2y ago
  No, I don't think it helps the govt. I don't think it was necessary. Motions, especially early ones like this, often have a lot of things in them that aren't necessary because they throw all their arguments at the wall and hope some of them stick. That's how it goes. This is likely a case of one of the DoL lawyers with a bone to pick who found a place to basically go "and another thing!"
autoexec 2y ago
The argument isn't over who can issue fines, it's about who has the right to contest them in a real courtroom with a real judge or even a jury.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  we call those "appeals". If you don't like your judgement, you can contest them in a real court room. There's an entire process for this. But if the appeleate court rules the same, you're SoL. IDK how many appeals you think people deserve over crimes this open and shut (and so frivelous in the grand scheme of things. He was charged 16k for the offense and backpay).