SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 21 2019, @05:17AM (13 children)
Strict constructionist here. I'm fully aware that illegal rulings can have good results. They're still illegal though. If you want a law or amendment that doesn't exist, do things the proper way. Anything else is tyranny regardless of the details.
This particular case, for instance, I fully believe the law should read as construed by SCOTUS. But it doesn't.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday February 21 2019, @05:55AM (12 children)
Yeah, believe it or not, I sort of agree with you. But we haven't lived in Constitutional land since at least the late 1930s. From a theoretical standpoint, I can agree with you... But from a practical legal standpoint, I also feel at some level one had to have consistent legal jurisprudence operating.
Given precedent of the past 75 years, this ruling is clearly consistent. I grate my teeth every time I see rulings like this, but denying them at this point would be arbitrary and capricious in terms of precedent, which I think would be even worse.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 21 2019, @03:24PM (11 children)
Oh, I'm not saying the justices should go overturning precedent. I'm saying we need to do some amending, give every last judge and justice the boot, and restock the bench with strict constructionists who can be impeached for handing out decisions that go against the Constitution. A very tall order, I'll grant you.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by RS3 on Thursday February 21 2019, @05:36PM (10 children)
What, a return to sanity and stability? (tongue-in-cheek of course)
As often, I strongly agree with you.
But I'm reminded that our (USA's) system was designed to be self modifying and correcting (constitutional amendments, for ex.). It went off the tracks long ago. "Checks and balances" are nil. Police do "internal investigations" and conflict of interest is government's "business as usual".
The system was designed by very intelligent and very pro-active people who all but assumed a wise and involved public would keep things in check. Over the years various things have de-powered the people and we feel ignored, un-represented, dis-involved, helpless, and ultimately manipulated. Now we have a voting public who are (too) heavily influenced by the viral topics of the day (both sides, all media).
The one thing I would immediately change in our system is: I would make it MUCH easier to remove people from office. We _could_ vote 4 times a year, for instance. In my area are some local officials that I think would be removed quickly if people felt the power to do so. The way it is now, someone gets into office, we might not like them, but it's too difficult to remove them, and we just deal with it. At the end of 4 years most people think "well, I don't like that person, but life isn't too bad, and the alternative is fairly unknown and I don't want to take a risk on an unknown for 4 years, so I'll vote for the unliked incumbent". If we voted 1, 2, 3, or 4 times a year, we'd be more likely to try someone new. I can hear all the knee-jerk reactions, but think and sleep on it a while.
No matter the arguing, I think it needs to be easier to remove unwanteds from office.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 21 2019, @05:56PM (3 children)
I'm not especially worried about elected officials needing removed. I see the merit in being able to do your job as your conscience dictates as well as of doing the will of the people who elected you. What we have now is a workable compromise between the two if not a perfect one. Politically appointed, utterly unaccountable asshats with lifetime positions is not what we need in any part of government though.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Thursday February 21 2019, @06:42PM (2 children)
> Politically appointed, utterly unaccountable asshats with lifetime positions is not what we need in any part of government though.
Absolutely agree. "Authorities". They're given too much power and discretion with essentially no oversight. The very idea that _anyone_ can seize property, garnish wages, etc., without a full court process and decision is complete breakage of US Constitutional rights.
I still think we need to be able to remove elected representatives and officials more easily, and more local ones more easily than higher level ones.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 21 2019, @06:54PM (1 child)
I was talking about the judges and justices but law enforcement folks fit the bill as well, yeah.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Friday February 22 2019, @12:00AM
Oh gosh yes. Dare I admit how happy it makes me when a judge is found guilty of something? I'm glad at least someone somewhere is trying to clean up the "system".
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Thursday February 21 2019, @06:46PM (5 children)
If you read the constitution, you will see there is no penalty of any kind specified for violating it.
So I think it's pretty clear that the authors also assumed that the representatives would be honorable in following its requirements.
I have very high confidence that omission was the single greatest error WRT the constitution's ability to do the job it was envisioned to do.
--
(√(-shit))²
Shit just got real
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 21 2019, @06:55PM
Yep. Pretty glaring oversight, that.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 21 2019, @08:54PM (1 child)
yes there was. they expected the people to kill them when they didn't uphold the bill of right and the constitution. not change the channel to watch a "reality" tv show.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Thursday February 21 2019, @10:10PM
This is certainly arguable — but it doesn't change a word of what I said, and in fact reinforces it if true: the lack of a forma process was a huge error; depending on the honor of politicians was a huge error; and to whatever extent your assertion actually underlies the document, relying on that was also a huge error.
Now we have a system that is corrupt from top to bottom, and no adequate means to fix it.
--
Before you louse something up, THIMK!
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Friday February 22 2019, @12:03AM (1 child)
I consider it high treason.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 22 2019, @08:21PM
thank you. it's at least sedition when an elected official tries to subvert the BoR or the constitution. they are supposed to be tried and executed. i thought i was clear by "kill them" b/c it's perfectly legitimate to do it without the trappings of a trial.