Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Civil Forfeiture Is Going Down!
I am over the moon with the Supreme Court and the new alliance between Gorsuch and Sotomayor. From Slate:
In Philadelphia, prosecutors seized one couple’s house because their son was arrested with $40 worth of drugs. Officials there seized 1,000 other houses and 3,300 vehicles before a 2018 settlement that led to reparations for victims. In 2014, federal prosecutors used asset forfeiture to take more stuff than burglars. One Texas police department seized property from out-of-town drivers, then colluded with the district attorney to coerce these drivers into waiving their rights. Law enforcement frequently targets poor people and racial minorities, figuring they are unable to fight back.
No longer?
So while Gorsuch and Sotomayor led the fight on Wednesday, there’s probably a cross-ideological coalition of justices prepared to invalidate excessive forfeitures. Such a ruling would reflect broad agreement across the ideological spectrum that forfeiture has gone too far. ….
Only Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito expressed any interest in allowing civil asset forfeiture to continue unabated. A majority of the court seems poised to rule that all 50 states must stop seizing property in a way that’s grossly disproportionate to the crime committed—a holy grail of criminal justice reformers. In one fell swoop, defendants will receive new protections against the legalized theft of their stuff.
This is a Very Big Deal.
Published in General
I have a shallow understanding of the details of the forteiture. Your explanation clarifies things for me. I agree: a fine is better than forteiture. No victim should be penalized for the wrong committed by a criminal, so making the victim whole is the goal.
even if my earlier comment is fuzzy and Sotomayor-ish.
Transcript.
Just in the last few years I’ve read about phenomenal solar-cell paints that you can paint anything with (even your cell phone) and safe ways of storing tons of hydrogen in a solid matrix to run a car. But nothing since.
IF (pardon the capitals) these inventions were ever mass produced it would end the world’s dependence on much of the oil it buys. And then the Saudi’s would not be selling oil in USD. And then nothing would be propping up the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. And then China would collude (I love that word) with Russia to implement a gold-backed Yuan. And the dollar would fail. So, the US is deliberately stymieing renewable energy and electric cars. And MBS is okay, for now.
But seriously. You’re saying that (1) when the Saudis sell oil to someone they ask to be payed in USD, (2) this is the main reason the USD is the world’s reserve currency, and (3) other stuff?
Never mind the other stuff.
I didn’t know that about Saudi oil sales. Interesting.
But I’m skeptical that that’s the reason the USD is the world’s favorite currency. I thought it was because the US economy is the strongest one with a pretty reliable future.
(Maybe off topic, but it’s interesting how some other important currencies are pegged to the USD–like the Hong Kong D and the Emirati Dirham.)
I’m not an economist, but standing in line waiting about two hours for a taxi a couple of years ago, I was talking to a Spanish economist assigned abroad to a Spanish embassy in SE Asia (that’s what I do: I talk; and complain — it’s my modest gift.) Her perspective was that the US economy is the strongest in the world. Perhaps this is true depending on the metrics and the definitions. She did believe that if the US debt to GDP is over 100%, which some sources say it is, it is unsustainable. But she also said that oil is purchased in other currencies that the USD.
Thinking about this for a few years. I keep reading that the US debt/GDP is at least a few points above 100%. Also that when Nixon took the US off the gold standard in 1971, at the same time he made a deal with the Saudi royals: we protect you forever, and you sell oil only in USD. This is why everyone wants USD. Period. (And why they’re all so willing to buy US treasuries and such from the Fed.) Not that it’s intrinsically worth anything, but that it is the only thing to buy most of the world’s oil. Also, this is why Venezuela wants to go to the Petro (crypto-currency), to undercut the USD. And this is partially why Russia is starting to sell oil in rubles, or Yuan, or Yuan converted to rubles, or whatever it is. And this is why amidst all of China’s central bank lending turmoil it is buying up gold, and intimating that it will start backing the Yuan with gold. And this is why people really do wonder exactly how much gold is actually in Fort Knox or stored in the Federal Reserve vaults (the questions apparently revolve around how much has been loaned out, how much sold, and how much has been subjected to, if I’m putting this intelligently, fractional reserve banking paper).
IF this is all true, and I think (with the exceptions of any mistakes in memory here of my own) it is, then, yes, the dollar is propped up as the world’s reserve currency ultimately only by it’s so-called Petro-dollar status.
And this also might explain why Trump is so easy on MBS.
Well answered.
Thanks.
What does the price of gold in China have to do with civil asset forfeiture? This might be an interesting OP, but not at all on topic.
Hey Ricochet cats, I think you’re straying into another yard here. Not at all on topic (civil asset forfeiture case before the U.S. Supreme Court), but sounds like a lively OP.
Oh, please. I takes only the slightest hint of high school chemistry and physics to call B.S. on such claims. Only mal-educated journalists would fall for it. You’ve heard nothing since because those products were vaporware, and those journalists, if they know they’ve been had at all, are too dishonest to correct the record.
Alluding to some kind of energy storage technology conspiracy is tip-toeing right up to the Ricochet CoC line, if not crossing it.
Yeah, 5 seconds of thought ought to be able to figure that out.
Okay, I’ve painted my cellphone with “solar cell paint”. Now I leave it out on a table in the sun. How does the electricity get from the paint into the battery?
The condescension in comments crushes the conversation.
Which is exactly why the government shouldn’t touch any assets until someone has been found guilty. Then the government should take reasonable steps to make sure it’s not seizing legally gotten gains. If it cannot prove an asset was I’ll gotten? Hands off . . .
Just so.
I agree wholeheartedly. There should be due process before being deprived of life, liberty, or property.
I don’t disagree with the due process part.
But you can’t say “Oh, I bought the house with money from my legit business – all the illegal money was spent on trips and gambling. Too bad, no way to repossess that stuff.”
Hence Stad’s suggestion of fines, rather than forfeitures. It neatly sidesteps the very situation you outline.
So you’re saying it’s not true because you don’t believe it.
I’m saying it’s right up there with flat earth claims. And chem trails. And the “fire isn’t hot enough to melt steel” of the 9/11 truthers. Et al.
You overextend [or exaggerated] your argument. I never said that.
And obviously you don’t know my philosophy: I believe virtually everything I read, and I think that is what makes me more of a selective human than someone who doesn’t believe anything.
But more seriously, there are crazy, conspiracy, demented youtube videos of people inventing things that seem to work and never got produced. Since they were never produced I don’t believe in them. And because I don’t in believe them they can’t ever have been real.
At the same time I know that corporations do pick up patent rights and copyrights for things that compete with them, so that they can control and quash them, and they will never be implemented. This has been going on longer than I’ve been alive, and has happened to people I know.
Tesla is the perfect example (intended or not) of screwing up a whole industry to preserve oil dependency. And never continue to attribute to idiocy or incompetency what more accurately can be explained as malice.
And remember: conspiracies do exist; that’s why they’re illegal.
On the original question: It is a VERY GOOD THING that the case is about a real drug dealer doing real crime.
This is precisely the kind of case that ends up making strong precedent law. After all, if the Court just rules that police officers cannot seize the property from people who seem nice, then every future case will rely on a very fuzzy metric, indeed.
But if it is held that even if the guy is clearly a Bad Guy the police still cannot depart from Due Process… that is what truly ends up protecting the people from the state.
I think Kavanaugh might be a strong supporter of upholding Due Process…
You’re just as God made you.
I confess. That’s a quote from David St. Hubbin of Spinal Tap fame. Don’t tell anyone, but it’s true.
Thank you so much for the hyperlink. My favorite part of the argument was by Justice Gorsuch. Classic. Justice Gorsuch is the reincarnation of Justice Scalia. (This is on page 32 of the 73 page transcript.)
JUSTICE GORSUCH: General, before we
get to the in rem argument and its application
to this case, can we just get one thing off the
table? We all agree that the Excessive Fines
Clause is incorporated against the states.
Whether this particular fine qualifies because
it’s an in rem forfeiture, another question.
But can we at least get the — the
theoretical question off the table, whether you
want to do it through the Due Process Clause
and look at history and tradition, you know,
gosh, excessive fines, guarantees against them
go back to Magna Carta and 1225, the English
Bill of Rights, the Virginia Declaration of
Rights, pretty deep history, or whether one
wants to look at privileges and immunities, you
might come to the same conclusion. Can we at
least — can we at least agree on that?
MR. FISHER: I have two responses to
that. First, with -
JUSTICE GORSUCH: Well, I — I think
— I think a “yes” or “no” would probably be a
good starting place.
(Laughter.)
Condescension rarely is helpful, and usually is more destructive than helpful. We are all conservatives here.
One main reason I hate the concept is the government seizes the very resources you need to hire decent lawyers before you even go to trial. This is done on purpose! Deprive a person the financial means to mount a successful defense by hiring a top-notch legal team, and he’s subjected to railroading.
Nope, never been a fan of asset forfeiture . . .
But the comments in question are entirely off point of the OP, which is about a Supreme Court case considering the future status of asset forfeiture laws, at the state and federal level.
Big thanks to @ctlaw for providing the link to the oral argument transcript on the U.S. Supreme Court’s official website. This stuff does not require a law degree to follow, and it is interesting.
Yes. This is appellate litigation 101. If the judge or justice asks you a question, start with “Yes” or “No,” showing them respect in their courtroom. Then, give the rest of your answer, so far as they will let you.
I appreciate the openness of the Supreme Court in their oral argument schedule and transcripts. The argument, in this case, can be followed by the general public, no law degree needed.
Beyond the substance, it is enlightening to read the questions asked. This is not cartoon Left-Right stuff.
I especially liked: