Supreme Court curbs power of government to impose heavy fines and seize property
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled to drastically curb the powers that states and cities have to levy fines and seize property, marking the first time the court has applied the Constitution's ban on excessive fines at the state level.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who returned to the court for the first time in almost two months after undergoing surgery for lung cancer, wrote the majority opinion in the case involving an Indiana man who had his Land Rover seized after he was arrested for selling $385 of heroin.
"Protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history for good reason: Such fines undermine other liberties," Ginsburg wrote. "They can be used, e.g., to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies. They can also be employed, not in service of penal purposes, but as a source of revenue."
Also at National Review, SCOTUSblog, and NPR.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 21 2019, @05:13AM (6 children)
Easy, killing innocent people. A freedom fighter would hit strategic points, not civilians or regular government employees that have nothing to do with whatever the "cause" is.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday February 21 2019, @06:25AM (2 children)
So you're arguing that the US military is a terrorist organization?
You can't reasonably even claim that they are always attempt to avoid killing or injuring non-combatants, but that's a lot stronger claim that you assert is necessary to mean that they are terrorists. And there is no question that the US military has often killed non-combatants. Kids at a grade schools are not combatants. (AFAICT, the instance that I heard reported was an accident, but it was done by the US military.)
Mind you, given the tactics used in Viet Nam and more recently I wouldn't say that was a mis-characterization, but you need to understand what your definition implies.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 21 2019, @07:26AM
From the point of view of the victims of their multitudinous regime changes, you got targeting of civilians and infrastructure, not as colateral dammage but in addition to, with intent of political change. So it's not so much an argument as an observation.
(Score: 3, Funny) by FatPhil on Thursday February 21 2019, @12:45PM
Yeah, I'm divided on that issue. Are they a terrorist organisation, or are they a mafia - it's such a tricky one to decide.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday February 21 2019, @12:21PM
Either you are a regular soldier, with your uniform, or you are an irregular, which is the same as a spy or as a terrorist. Sure you can be more or less moral in your action and you WOULD deserve an appropriate treatment. But, lacking the resources to do that, you should be filled up with pentothal until you spill all beans, and executed. Because YOU, as an irregular soldier you declared a war and brought it to a territory. I know that most of the time it's the weakest one who is more right, while the most wrong is the most strong and can get pretty uniforms as dominant. I don't claim that's fair.
The additional problem. Which makes the above moot, is that the system is already one and wars are not fought with conventional weapons. This is why the system is not hypocrite when it pushes anti-militarism and gun control on one side and spend trillions on arms on the other. Brute force has been superseded by faster and more accurate weapons (finance) or slower and less detectable weapons (demography, immigration, sexual revolution). WW I and II already were wars fought not for territory but for social transformation.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday February 21 2019, @12:43PM (1 child)
> ... not [...] regular government employees that have nothing to do with whatever the "cause" is.
If "the man" is the problem, then "working for the man" means you are part of the problem. It's now just shades of grey to decide whether someone working for them man has "nothing to do with whatever the "cause" is". You've just shifted the argument, not solved it.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 22 2019, @08:26PM
government workers are perfectly legitimate targets and Timothy McVeigh was a true american patriot. too bad all those little "treasonous pigs in training" died, but that's what you get when you have kids on the dime of the people and you store them in a building for the fucking atf.