I'm waiting for the announcement that Thomas has decided to retire, giving Trump yet another Supreme Court pick that'll fuck the country for four decades or more after he's gone.
He's only 70, he has another decade+ of writing opinions that are a century out of place.
And that he financially benefits from.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Joshua Block is an attorney for the LGBT-focused wing of the ACLU.
I know a lot of gnashing of teeth is happening, deservedly, over the ruling because of Gorsch and Kavanaugh, but Joshua points out here that we can't forget that Thomas is also a piece of shit who doesn't care about conflicts of interest.
Originally posted in the immigration thread, but was informed its more topical to go here.
Same thing has happened before with Thomas. His wife is a real piece of shit involved in a lot of really nasty lobbying work. It doesn't matter and he will never recuse himself because to the Right the SCOTUS is merely a tool to advance their regressive agenda.
They also allowed the execution of a man who had been granted a stay by the 11th circuit. The stay had been granted because the prison wouldn't allow his imam to be present in his final moments, while they routinely allow Christian chaplains to join others condemned to die. SCOTUS was like, eh, whatever, he didn't appeal quickly enough. 5-4, of course.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
What Kavanaugh wrote a dissent because the court found the same law that Texas tried to push in 2016 just as unconstitutional now in 2018 as it was then and upheld precedent?
Why poor Susan Collins must just be beside herself.
To be clear, it's Kagan's dissent for the decision to reverse the stay on the execution.
The majority denied the stay because he waited 5 days between finding out his request was denied and appealing. 5 days.
No, see, he should have appealed months earlier when he was told what the date of his execution was going to be, even though back then there was nothing said to him to indicate that his religion would not be accommodated.
To be clear, it's Kagan's dissent for the decision to reverse the stay on the execution.
The majority denied the stay because he waited 5 days between finding out his request was denied and appealing. 5 days.
No, see, he should have appealed months earlier when he was told what the date of his execution was going to be, even though back then there was nothing said to him to indicate that his religion would not be accommodated.
Yep. I file suit on every potentially impactful decision, before the decision has been made. It's just common sense.
Going to visit my mother next week. Already filed lawsuits against the bus company AND train company for being late, despite them not being late yet, of course. Also have a pending suit against my mother if she has to cancel for other commitments, and am already filing the paperwork to add on the people she might have other commitments to (could be my sibling or their kids, or one of a few family friends, so I'm keeping my options open). I mean, gotta protect myself, yes?
Five. Fucking. Days.
While it's clear Christianity would never be in this position in America (because of course not, despite encroaching "Sharia Law"), given how the anti-BDS position has got traction in state and federal governments, I'd bet significant money that if this was a Judaist being denied a rabbi, that five days to file wouldn't be a fucking acceptable reason to vacate the stay.
I'm honestly not surprised by this. I'm heartbroken. Not a believer (of any faith), and I don't oppose the death penalty for the normal reasons (my objections are primarily legalistic) but if having a leader of their faith gives comfort to someone the state is going to kill, it's the fucking least they can do.
How many times is the US going to ignore the primary tenets of their founding (and subsequent revisions) that everyone should be fucking equal under the law.
All the times, apparently. It's clear that there's a separate rule for rich, straight, white, Christian men (at least four of the five), and a rule for everyone else. So fucking sick of it. American wants to claim the mantle of the "best" country in the world? Fucking PROVE it. Hell, take up Melania's stupid slogan. Be best. Not this obscene fucking theatre of it.
I am curious if the prison chaplain (who would have been allowed to do their duty if it was a Christian being executed) objected to this denial or not.
I'd hope so, but it's Alabama, and while I try to be open-minded, I wouldn't bet money on it.
I'm sure there are many truly compassionate and egalitarian clergy in Alabama, I think they'd be outnumbered, given how at least their politicians govern, when it comes to religion under the law. Which is representative of their voters, which is representative of their faith leaders.
The court needs to be packed. It's already a legislative arm at this point. It's just a horribly designed legislative arm in it's current form that will be harm us for decades at minimum.
A 5-4 decision that your religion doesn't count unless it's the religion shared by the Republicans on the court is just fucking disturbing.
Court just ruled 9-0 that the 8th Amendment is incorporated to the states and glared very hard at Asset Forfeiture.
Still reading but this really strikes me as an unmitigated Good Thing. Asset forfeiture is complete bullshit (as currently implemented.)
Yeah, SCOTUS has been signaling that they're going to smash civil forfeiture for a while now, neither wing of the court seems to find it palatable.
Yup even the most right wing on the court have been making ominous rumbling about their feelings towards civil forfeiture for a while. For their various reasons all were looking at this more and more dubiously over the years and I think that just came to a head.
Court just ruled 9-0 that the 8th Amendment is incorporated to the states and glared very hard at Asset Forfeiture.
Still reading but this really strikes me as an unmitigated Good Thing. Asset forfeiture is complete bullshit (as currently implemented.)
Read through the opinions. Those concurring opinions do a great job of locking and sealing the door behind them. Thomas in particular seems to go out of his way to make sure there's not going to be another legal theory anyone can hang their hat on for saying forfeiture is okay.
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
Court just ruled 9-0 that the 8th Amendment is incorporated to the states and glared very hard at Asset Forfeiture.
Still reading but this really strikes me as an unmitigated Good Thing. Asset forfeiture is complete bullshit (as currently implemented.)
It's almost as if fines are a perfectly reasonable form of restitution until you make them unreasonably excessive.
Or, y'know, fines being imposed without any conviction of actual wrongdoing.
Timbs pled guilty/was convicted.
In this case, yes, but there was a case where a couple lost their house because the house was seized as evidence because their son was selling drugs in their house, unbeknownst to the parents. The police kept the house afterwards. Just because it was evidence. Cite.
Court just ruled 9-0 that the 8th Amendment is incorporated to the states and glared very hard at Asset Forfeiture.
Still reading but this really strikes me as an unmitigated Good Thing. Asset forfeiture is complete bullshit (as currently implemented.)
It's almost as if fines are a perfectly reasonable form of restitution until you make them unreasonably excessive.
Or, y'know, fines being imposed without any conviction of actual wrongdoing.
Timbs pled guilty/was convicted.
In this case, yes, but there was a case where a couple lost their house because the house was seized as evidence because their son was selling drugs in their house, unbeknownst to the parents. The police kept the house afterwards. Just because it was evidence. Cite.
That's not why it was seized. It was seized because the government asserted that it was used to sell drugs from. Under our drug laws the government can seize property that is used in drug trafficking. They literally sue the property itself, not the owners. To get it back you have to launch a lawsuit of your own, on your own dime. There are no public defenders for this since you aren't charged with a crime.
BrodyThe WatchThe First ShoreRegistered Userregular
Sorry if this question gets a little into the weeds, and I realize that all of it is somewhat predicated on "Law and Order" vs Fuck the Police, but what exactly is civil forfeiture vs criminal, and will criminal still be available to prosecute large scale drug trafficking? Or is the fact that its still used to combat large scale drug trafficking a cover story for stealing property to fund the war on drugs?
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
Court just ruled 9-0 that the 8th Amendment is incorporated to the states and glared very hard at Asset Forfeiture.
Still reading but this really strikes me as an unmitigated Good Thing. Asset forfeiture is complete bullshit (as currently implemented.)
It's almost as if fines are a perfectly reasonable form of restitution until you make them unreasonably excessive.
Or, y'know, fines being imposed without any conviction of actual wrongdoing.
Timbs pled guilty/was convicted.
In this case, yes, but there was a case where a couple lost their house because the house was seized as evidence because their son was selling drugs in their house, unbeknownst to the parents. The police kept the house afterwards. Just because it was evidence. Cite.
That's not why it was seized. It was seized because the government asserted that it was used to sell drugs from. Under our drug laws the government can seize property that is used in drug trafficking. They literally sue the property itself, not the owners. To get it back you have to launch a lawsuit of your own, on your own dime. There are no public defenders for this since you aren't charged with a crime.
Court just ruled 9-0 that the 8th Amendment is incorporated to the states and glared very hard at Asset Forfeiture.
Still reading but this really strikes me as an unmitigated Good Thing. Asset forfeiture is complete bullshit (as currently implemented.)
It's almost as if fines are a perfectly reasonable form of restitution until you make them unreasonably excessive.
Or, y'know, fines being imposed without any conviction of actual wrongdoing.
Timbs pled guilty/was convicted.
In this case, yes, but there was a case where a couple lost their house because the house was seized as evidence because their son was selling drugs in their house, unbeknownst to the parents. The police kept the house afterwards. Just because it was evidence. Cite.
That's not why it was seized. It was seized because the government asserted that it was used to sell drugs from. Under our drug laws the government can seize property that is used in drug trafficking. They literally sue the property itself, not the owners. To get it back you have to launch a lawsuit of your own, on your own dime. There are no public defenders for this since you aren't charged with a crime.
The house being evidence has no bearing on this.
If anything, that makes it worse.
Much worse its really really hard to fight one of these cases because you don't have much standing. They are not saying you committed a crime they are saying your money or your car did. So you have to go through crazy hoops to try and contest it and most people who are not wealthy simply don't have the resources access to lawyers skilled enough to fight it. It is basically straight up highway robbery at this point so hopefully this ruling by SCOTUS puts the breaks on this nonsense.
Sorry if this question gets a little into the weeds, and I realize that all of it is somewhat predicated on "Law and Order" vs Fuck the Police, but what exactly is civil forfeiture vs criminal, and will criminal still be available to prosecute large scale drug trafficking? Or is the fact that its still used to combat large scale drug trafficking a cover story for stealing property to fund the war on drugs?
Asset Forfeiture isn't actually a punishment for a crime. It isn't even a criminal procedure. It is a civil case and it is brought against the asset itself. "The State versus $66,243 dollars in cash" sort of cases. To avoid it you have to prove that the money isn't illegal. So it flips the presumption of "innocence", it removes your right to free consul if you can't afford it, and the seizure happens long in advance of the trial being completed.
Right now nothing has changed because of this ruling except it is harder for states to justify seizing houses over dime bags. I am hopeful that it leads to the current asset forfeiture system being done away with.
I can see a system where property that are the proceeds of illegal activities are seized but it is going to require a much different standard in the law to be just, and possibly Constitutional changes to be legal.
Court just ruled 9-0 that the 8th Amendment is incorporated to the states and glared very hard at Asset Forfeiture.
Still reading but this really strikes me as an unmitigated Good Thing. Asset forfeiture is complete bullshit (as currently implemented.)
It's almost as if fines are a perfectly reasonable form of restitution until you make them unreasonably excessive.
Or, y'know, fines being imposed without any conviction of actual wrongdoing.
Yeah, restitution is miles away from what civil forfeiture is.
Apologies if I was misunderstanding from not reading the actual opinion yet, is this just about asset forfeiture as part of conviction penalties, or do the opinions also include comments on civil forfeiture, where assets are seized without any conviction of wrongdoing?
Court just ruled 9-0 that the 8th Amendment is incorporated to the states and glared very hard at Asset Forfeiture.
Still reading but this really strikes me as an unmitigated Good Thing. Asset forfeiture is complete bullshit (as currently implemented.)
It's almost as if fines are a perfectly reasonable form of restitution until you make them unreasonably excessive.
Or, y'know, fines being imposed without any conviction of actual wrongdoing.
Timbs pled guilty/was convicted.
In this case, yes, but there was a case where a couple lost their house because the house was seized as evidence because their son was selling drugs in their house, unbeknownst to the parents. The police kept the house afterwards. Just because it was evidence. Cite.
That's not why it was seized. It was seized because the government asserted that it was used to sell drugs from. Under our drug laws the government can seize property that is used in drug trafficking. They literally sue the property itself, not the owners. To get it back you have to launch a lawsuit of your own, on your own dime. There are no public defenders for this since you aren't charged with a crime.
The house being evidence has no bearing on this.
If anything, that makes it worse.
Oh yeah, 100% agree on that. Now that case in particular is going to have problems with this most recent ruling because a house far exceeds the maximum possible fine for $40 bucks of weed. There are other cases where this isn't directly going to impact but pretty much begs somebody to bring those other cases to the Court so they have a reason to gut it in general.
Court just ruled 9-0 that the 8th Amendment is incorporated to the states and glared very hard at Asset Forfeiture.
Still reading but this really strikes me as an unmitigated Good Thing. Asset forfeiture is complete bullshit (as currently implemented.)
It's almost as if fines are a perfectly reasonable form of restitution until you make them unreasonably excessive.
Or, y'know, fines being imposed without any conviction of actual wrongdoing.
Timbs pled guilty/was convicted.
In this case, yes, but there was a case where a couple lost their house because the house was seized as evidence because their son was selling drugs in their house, unbeknownst to the parents. The police kept the house afterwards. Just because it was evidence. Cite.
That's not why it was seized. It was seized because the government asserted that it was used to sell drugs from. Under our drug laws the government can seize property that is used in drug trafficking. They literally sue the property itself, not the owners. To get it back you have to launch a lawsuit of your own, on your own dime. There are no public defenders for this since you aren't charged with a crime.
The house being evidence has no bearing on this.
So the house case was Civil Forfeiture, but different from the SCOTUS case where the guy's Range Rover was seized by the police? Not comparable?
You can order seized evidence in a case forfeited when someone is sentenced after conviction of a crime. Civil forfeiture is a different beast in that it's not linked to a criminal legal case necessarily and as pointed out above is propped up by the absurd legal fiction that you are suing the property itself.
+10
Options
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
Jon Oliver's episode on asset forfeiture is really good
Court just ruled 9-0 that the 8th Amendment is incorporated to the states and glared very hard at Asset Forfeiture.
Still reading but this really strikes me as an unmitigated Good Thing. Asset forfeiture is complete bullshit (as currently implemented.)
It's almost as if fines are a perfectly reasonable form of restitution until you make them unreasonably excessive.
Or, y'know, fines being imposed without any conviction of actual wrongdoing.
Yeah, restitution is miles away from what civil forfeiture is.
Apologies if I was misunderstanding from not reading the actual opinion yet, is this just about asset forfeiture as part of conviction penalties, or do the opinions also include comments on civil forfeiture, where assets are seized without any conviction of wrongdoing?
This case does not directly touch civil forfeiture, no. The ruling almost certainly limits it... if you can afford a lawyer.
The court has signalled on this in prior cases though, and is probably waiting for the right one to finish it off.
Court just ruled 9-0 that the 8th Amendment is incorporated to the states and glared very hard at Asset Forfeiture.
Still reading but this really strikes me as an unmitigated Good Thing. Asset forfeiture is complete bullshit (as currently implemented.)
It's almost as if fines are a perfectly reasonable form of restitution until you make them unreasonably excessive.
Or, y'know, fines being imposed without any conviction of actual wrongdoing.
Timbs pled guilty/was convicted.
In this case, yes, but there was a case where a couple lost their house because the house was seized as evidence because their son was selling drugs in their house, unbeknownst to the parents. The police kept the house afterwards. Just because it was evidence. Cite.
That's not why it was seized. It was seized because the government asserted that it was used to sell drugs from. Under our drug laws the government can seize property that is used in drug trafficking. They literally sue the property itself, not the owners. To get it back you have to launch a lawsuit of your own, on your own dime. There are no public defenders for this since you aren't charged with a crime.
The house being evidence has no bearing on this.
So the house case was Civil Forfeiture, but different from the SCOTUS case where the guy's Range Rover was seized by the police? Not comparable?
The Range Rover was also Civil Forfeiture, so pretty comparable. The biggest issue with the house would be that it was seized because of actions that weren't done by the owner so making the comparison to fines is more tenuous. Overall, I don't think that'd make SCOTUS more likely to support the seizure.
Edit: Listen to the actual lawyers in here on that bit.
Posts
And that he financially benefits from.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Like I said in the other thread:
pleasepaypreacher.net
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/07/politics/supreme-court-louisiana-abortion-kavanaugh-roberts/index.html
They also allowed the execution of a man who had been granted a stay by the 11th circuit. The stay had been granted because the prison wouldn't allow his imam to be present in his final moments, while they routinely allow Christian chaplains to join others condemned to die. SCOTUS was like, eh, whatever, he didn't appeal quickly enough. 5-4, of course.
What Kavanaugh wrote a dissent because the court found the same law that Texas tried to push in 2016 just as unconstitutional now in 2018 as it was then and upheld precedent?
Why poor Susan Collins must just be beside herself.
Read Kagan's dissent. It really says it all.
(Mark Joseph Stern is a writer for Slate and a lawyer. Using his tweet since the whole dissent is there for easy reading.)
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Everything about the death penalty is gross as hell, bordering on Mangala-esque torture.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
The majority denied the stay because he waited 5 days between finding out his request was denied and appealing. 5 days.
No, see, he should have appealed months earlier when he was told what the date of his execution was going to be, even though back then there was nothing said to him to indicate that his religion would not be accommodated.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Yep. I file suit on every potentially impactful decision, before the decision has been made. It's just common sense.
Going to visit my mother next week. Already filed lawsuits against the bus company AND train company for being late, despite them not being late yet, of course. Also have a pending suit against my mother if she has to cancel for other commitments, and am already filing the paperwork to add on the people she might have other commitments to (could be my sibling or their kids, or one of a few family friends, so I'm keeping my options open). I mean, gotta protect myself, yes?
Five. Fucking. Days.
While it's clear Christianity would never be in this position in America (because of course not, despite encroaching "Sharia Law"), given how the anti-BDS position has got traction in state and federal governments, I'd bet significant money that if this was a Judaist being denied a rabbi, that five days to file wouldn't be a fucking acceptable reason to vacate the stay.
I'm honestly not surprised by this. I'm heartbroken. Not a believer (of any faith), and I don't oppose the death penalty for the normal reasons (my objections are primarily legalistic) but if having a leader of their faith gives comfort to someone the state is going to kill, it's the fucking least they can do.
How many times is the US going to ignore the primary tenets of their founding (and subsequent revisions) that everyone should be fucking equal under the law.
All the times, apparently. It's clear that there's a separate rule for rich, straight, white, Christian men (at least four of the five), and a rule for everyone else. So fucking sick of it. American wants to claim the mantle of the "best" country in the world? Fucking PROVE it. Hell, take up Melania's stupid slogan. Be best. Not this obscene fucking theatre of it.
I am curious if the prison chaplain (who would have been allowed to do their duty if it was a Christian being executed) objected to this denial or not.
I'd hope so, but it's Alabama, and while I try to be open-minded, I wouldn't bet money on it.
I'm sure there are many truly compassionate and egalitarian clergy in Alabama, I think they'd be outnumbered, given how at least their politicians govern, when it comes to religion under the law. Which is representative of their voters, which is representative of their faith leaders.
A 5-4 decision that your religion doesn't count unless it's the religion shared by the Republicans on the court is just fucking disturbing.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1091_5536.pdf
Court just ruled 9-0 that the 8th Amendment is incorporated to the states and glared very hard at Asset Forfeiture.
Still reading but this really strikes me as an unmitigated Good Thing. Asset forfeiture is complete bullshit (as currently implemented.)
It's almost as if fines are a perfectly reasonable form of restitution until you make them unreasonably excessive.
Yeah, SCOTUS has been signaling that they're going to smash civil forfeiture for a while now, neither wing of the court seems to find it palatable.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Yup this seems like a pretty big hammer toss in the direction to civil asset forfeiture which undoubtedly is a good thing.
Yup even the most right wing on the court have been making ominous rumbling about their feelings towards civil forfeiture for a while. For their various reasons all were looking at this more and more dubiously over the years and I think that just came to a head.
Or, y'know, fines being imposed without any conviction of actual wrongdoing.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Read through the opinions. Those concurring opinions do a great job of locking and sealing the door behind them. Thomas in particular seems to go out of his way to make sure there's not going to be another legal theory anyone can hang their hat on for saying forfeiture is okay.
Now now, this only applies to poor people.
Timbs pled guilty/was convicted.
In this case, yes, but there was a case where a couple lost their house because the house was seized as evidence because their son was selling drugs in their house, unbeknownst to the parents. The police kept the house afterwards. Just because it was evidence. Cite.
Yeah, restitution is miles away from what civil forfeiture is.
That's not why it was seized. It was seized because the government asserted that it was used to sell drugs from. Under our drug laws the government can seize property that is used in drug trafficking. They literally sue the property itself, not the owners. To get it back you have to launch a lawsuit of your own, on your own dime. There are no public defenders for this since you aren't charged with a crime.
The house being evidence has no bearing on this.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
If anything, that makes it worse.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
Much worse its really really hard to fight one of these cases because you don't have much standing. They are not saying you committed a crime they are saying your money or your car did. So you have to go through crazy hoops to try and contest it and most people who are not wealthy simply don't have the resources access to lawyers skilled enough to fight it. It is basically straight up highway robbery at this point so hopefully this ruling by SCOTUS puts the breaks on this nonsense.
Asset Forfeiture isn't actually a punishment for a crime. It isn't even a criminal procedure. It is a civil case and it is brought against the asset itself. "The State versus $66,243 dollars in cash" sort of cases. To avoid it you have to prove that the money isn't illegal. So it flips the presumption of "innocence", it removes your right to free consul if you can't afford it, and the seizure happens long in advance of the trial being completed.
Right now nothing has changed because of this ruling except it is harder for states to justify seizing houses over dime bags. I am hopeful that it leads to the current asset forfeiture system being done away with.
I can see a system where property that are the proceeds of illegal activities are seized but it is going to require a much different standard in the law to be just, and possibly Constitutional changes to be legal.
Apologies if I was misunderstanding from not reading the actual opinion yet, is this just about asset forfeiture as part of conviction penalties, or do the opinions also include comments on civil forfeiture, where assets are seized without any conviction of wrongdoing?
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Oh yeah, 100% agree on that. Now that case in particular is going to have problems with this most recent ruling because a house far exceeds the maximum possible fine for $40 bucks of weed. There are other cases where this isn't directly going to impact but pretty much begs somebody to bring those other cases to the Court so they have a reason to gut it in general.
So the house case was Civil Forfeiture, but different from the SCOTUS case where the guy's Range Rover was seized by the police? Not comparable?
This case does not directly touch civil forfeiture, no. The ruling almost certainly limits it... if you can afford a lawyer.
The court has signalled on this in prior cases though, and is probably waiting for the right one to finish it off.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
The Range Rover was also Civil Forfeiture, so pretty comparable. The biggest issue with the house would be that it was seized because of actions that weren't done by the owner so making the comparison to fines is more tenuous. Overall, I don't think that'd make SCOTUS more likely to support the seizure.
Edit: Listen to the actual lawyers in here on that bit.
That's kind of the important take away here, even though the case itself is more narrow