But Indiana’s top court said the justices had never ruled that the Eighth Amendment’s ban on excessive fines — like much of the rest of the Bill of Rights — applies to states as well as the federal government.
WTF? The Bill of Rights doesn’t apply to the states?
Well, it is Indiana, so…
Way back in the ancient times of 1994, Edina Monsoon knew the perfect way for us to afford nice things:
Thomas said he would have relied on the Constitution’s language forbidding states from making or enforcing “any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”
You mean like those found in the 14th amendment? These idiots will sanely decide cases when they’re forced to. But they’ll still lie about their reasoning if it will advance their corrupt goals.
Good! And a unanimous ruling, too boot.
PS: This article illustrates asset forfeiture well:
OMG our court system is working, our court system is working!!! lunges for smelling salts
How’d they get even Thomas to sign off on that one…
Yes. As written, The Bill of Rights applies only to the Federal Government. It is only through application of the 14th Amendment that any of the rights in the those first ten amendments have any application to the States - but there is no decision saying that all apply. So, it’s been a little bit here, a little bit there - and now there’s another little bit.
I’m more interested in how the due process clause of the 14th Amendment was misused in the Dred Scott decision, when the 14th Amendment didn’t exist at that time.
Nope. Originally it only restricted the actions of the Federal government. It uses language like “Congress shall make no law that”… It doesn’t say what the states can’t do.
Only after the 14th amendment did the Supreme Court start saying that States had to respect your rights also. AKA “Incorporation”
Until then you had to depend on the goodness of your state government for your rights.
So what happens next?
Do all the states suddenly give up on their civil forfeiture schemes or do they all have to be sued one-by-one to get them to stop?
So taking away someone’s Land Rover is too much; now, what about taking away someone’s child?
But it was a Fifth Amendment thing, also.
“But Indiana’s top court said the justices had never ruled that the Eighth Amendment’s ban on excessive fines — like much of the rest of the Bill of Rights — applies to states as well as the federal government.”
Fucking nonsense and they know it. They’re clinging to their means of beating down minorities and the poor and keeping that way while making money off it so wealthy white people don’t have to pay taxes. Those communities are regularly targeted for selective enforcement and shit like random profiling stops just to get the people into a cycle of never-ending fines, court fees, interest, late fees, etc. Just look at the DOJ report from Ferguson where the judges were even in on it.
They still haven’t addressed the practice of applying civil forfeiture to people who haven’t been convicted of any crime. That is such a blatant violation of due process, I don’t understand how it has survived this long.
…nor shall any person… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Which part of this is confusing?
Does this mean we won’t be able to strip the gold-plated bathroom fixtures from Trump Tower, then?
Not a problem. Not real gold. Everything in TrumpWorld is faux.
This means the rightest of the righties signed off on this one. Hope springs eternal.
Who writes Thomas’ rulings now that Scalia is gone? Is that Gorsuch’s job now?
I’m concerned about this, too. Civil forfeitures are a boon for small towns and police departments. Who polices the police in this case?