Supreme Court rules 8th Amendment applies to states

[Missourian]

Big win in the fight against civil asset forfeiture in Supreme Court today...not a total victory, but definitely a big step in the right direction.



If you'd rather read than watch, link to CNBC:

In a unanimous holding, the justices for the first time incorporated the 8th Amendment's protection against excessive fines to the states. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who delivered the court's opinion, wrote that the safeguard is "fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty."

Supreme Court says states can't impose excessive fines in pivotal ruling
​

 

[percysunshine]

Libertarians are going to drink too much gin tonight.

 

[g5000]

Supreme Court says constitutional protection against excessive fines applies to state actions


Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, on just her second day back on the bench after undergoing cancer surgery in December, announced the decision for the court, saying that the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause protects against government retribution.

“For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history: Exorbitant tolls undermine other constitutional liberties,” Ginsburg wrote. “Excessive fines can be used, for example, to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies. . . . Even absent a political motive, fines may be employed in a measure out of accord with the penal goals of retribution and deterrence.”

The court ruled in favor of Tyson Timbs of Marion, Ind., who had his $42,000 Land Rover seized after he was arrested for selling a couple hundred dollars’ worth of heroin.


The cops have been totally out of control with their literal highway robbery in the name of "civil asset forfeiture". It's great to see all the Supremes give them a kick in the nuts.

 

[g5000]

It was clearly a Ginsburg double in court. She's dead. All the pseudocons manufacturers of bullshit say so.

 

[The Original Tree]

Since Babies are property and not human beings this is consistent with her ideology.

 

[The VOR]

Since Babies are property and not human beings this is consistent with her ideology.

You're a moron.

 

[g5000]

In the OP link is a video called "Your property is guilty until you prove it innocent".

Well worth watching if you are not aware of how abusive cops have become.

 

[g5000]

Here is the YouTube version of the Washington Post investigation:

 

[Pete7469]

When states begin making a profit by prosecuting people and taking their shit for drug crimes, it leads to corrupt practices.

If someone hurts or kills someone in a commission of a crime I can see taking their property and giving it to victims in compensation, but even then to do so to the point of ruining the offender should require strict scrutiny.


.

 

[MoneyShaker]

I don't mind a person's car being forfeited if they were selling drugs out of that car when arrested or whatever.

What I DO mind is that if the person is found not guilty they don't immediately, if ever, get their property back. That is some BS

 

[g5000]

With zero evidence, a cop can decide any cash in your car is going to be used to buy drugs, and then the cop can seize it.

Just. Like. That.

 

[debbiedowner]

tree is an idiot he apparently didn't read that was an unanimous vote.

 

[MarcATL]

Who's down with RBG?....EVERYbody!!!

 

[g5000]

"Protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history for good reason: Such fines undermine other liberties. They can be used, e.g., to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies." - Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Not bad thinking for someone who's dead!

 

[justoffal]

When states begin making a profit by prosecuting people and taking their shit for drug crimes, it leads to corrupt practices.

If someone hurts or kills someone in a commission of a crime I can see taking their property and giving it to victims in compensation, but even then to do so to the point of ruining the offender should require strict scrutiny.


.

Precisely what Mueller did to Flynn.
Made it too expensive to fight back.

Jo

 

[sakinago]

Supreme Court says constitutional protection against excessive fines applies to state actions


Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, on just her second day back on the bench after undergoing cancer surgery in December, announced the decision for the court, saying that the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause protects against government retribution.

“For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history: Exorbitant tolls undermine other constitutional liberties,” Ginsburg wrote. “Excessive fines can be used, for example, to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies. . . . Even absent a political motive, fines may be employed in a measure out of accord with the penal goals of retribution and deterrence.”

The court ruled in favor of Tyson Timbs of Marion, Ind., who had his $42,000 Land Rover seized after he was arrested for selling a couple hundred dollars’ worth of heroin.


The cops have been totally out of control with their literal highway robbery in the name of "civil asset forfeiture". It's great to see all the Supremes give them a kick in the nuts.

Is the left finally paying attention to civil asset forfeit seizure?

 

[Pogo]

Supreme Court says constitutional protection against excessive fines applies to state actions


Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, on just her second day back on the bench after undergoing cancer surgery in December, announced the decision for the court, saying that the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause protects against government retribution.

“For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history: Exorbitant tolls undermine other constitutional liberties,” Ginsburg wrote. “Excessive fines can be used, for example, to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies. . . . Even absent a political motive, fines may be employed in a measure out of accord with the penal goals of retribution and deterrence.”

The court ruled in favor of Tyson Timbs of Marion, Ind., who had his $42,000 Land Rover seized after he was arrested for selling a couple hundred dollars’ worth of heroin.


The cops have been totally out of control with their literal highway robbery in the name of "civil asset forfeiture". It's great to see all the Supremes give them a kick in the nuts.

Is the left finally paying attention to civil asset forfeit seizure?

"finally"?

 

[rightwinger]

Slam dunk for the court...unanimous decision to stop states from terrorizing motorists.

 

[bodecea]

Since Babies are property and not human beings this is consistent with her ideology.

You're a moron.

No....she's just a Russian troll.

 

[justoffal]

Supreme Court says constitutional protection against excessive fines applies to state actions


Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, on just her second day back on the bench after undergoing cancer surgery in December, announced the decision for the court, saying that the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause protects against government retribution.

“For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history: Exorbitant tolls undermine other constitutional liberties,” Ginsburg wrote. “Excessive fines can be used, for example, to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies. . . . Even absent a political motive, fines may be employed in a measure out of accord with the penal goals of retribution and deterrence.”

The court ruled in favor of Tyson Timbs of Marion, Ind., who had his $42,000 Land Rover seized after he was arrested for selling a couple hundred dollars’ worth of heroin.


The cops have been totally out of control with their literal highway robbery in the name of "civil asset forfeiture". It's great to see all the Supremes give them a kick in the nuts.

Is the left finally paying attention to civil asset forfeit seizure?

That statement is as general and meaningless as a Horoscope or the scrawl on the back of a fortune cookie.

First of all " Fining " is not a constitutional liberty. It is the action of penal code. For her to say " Other liberties " smells like the work of an understudy.

Secondly, we are not talking about political retaliation or even free speech. We're talking about using the penal code to discourage bad behavior. Sure the guy only sold 200 bucks worth of class A but he's still part by choice of a national epidemic. The laws are strong because they need to be. Do they get abused? Certainly. Take them away though and watch what happens.

Jo