Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Thursday February 21 2019, @03:11AM   Printer-friendly
from the kick-back dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Thursday February 21 2019, @07:02PM (2 children)

    by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Thursday February 21 2019, @07:02PM (#804635) Journal

    Well, it was the reason given for the war and what the masses bought into, perhaps. Just like how the Iraq war was about liberation and not about oil at all. The reality [politifact.com] is that most of the founding fathers were wealthy and most came from privileged backgrounds with a couple of exceptions.

    The founding fathers had more in common with Trump, Bezos, and Musk than they did you or I.

    --
    This sig for rent.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Thursday February 21 2019, @07:35PM (1 child)

    by opinionated_science (4031) on Thursday February 21 2019, @07:35PM (#804656)

    That is probably true - no surprise. But at the historical time, it would have been improbable for a revolution from anyone else. They were smart and educated, and being rich 200 years age basically gave them an education and time to use it.

    Nowadays, things are far more equal , despite all the "whinging" about *absolute* equality, humans in the west (and in general), are far better off then the richest person of even 50 years ago, but definitely 200.

    Being healthy, fed, and able to commence "the pursuit of happiness" is something that prior to the USA was "as the subject of a land by a bunch of inbred bastards".*

    We have a long way to go - but until we get our political system to become fact based (and not dogma driven as currently), we'll keep missing the target.

    *insert monarchy to complete the joke

    • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Thursday February 21 2019, @08:19PM

      by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Thursday February 21 2019, @08:19PM (#804685) Journal

      True. We recently had The Moon is a Harsh Mistress for discussion, which also floated the idea that a successful revolution always needs help from other circumstances. And it isn't that the founders had no moral grounds, either. The real challenge may be that I'm not sure the powers that be want the political system based on fact when rhetoric gets votes. (Is a fact based system incompatible with democracy?)

      --
      This sig for rent.