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, @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!