Nightmare Confirmed by the Supreme Court: You Really ARE Guilty Until Proven Innocent (Congress, illegal aliens)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Bad decision from the SCOTUS. Can you imagine the federal government seizing the money you used to pay bail and your qualified attorney? On the bright side the rich might just get treated like the poor, so it could end up changing the system.
Bad decision from the SCOTUS. Can you imagine the federal government seizing the money you used to pay bail and your qualified attorney? On the bright side the rich might just get treated like the poor, so it could end up changing the system.
I doubt it, the rich will always have better lawyers and influential friends.
And I doubt we will ever see this effect any large corporations. The current SCOTUS seems to love corporate greed, corruption, and influence.
Bad decision from the SCOTUS. Can you imagine the federal government seizing the money you used to pay bail and your qualified attorney? On the bright side the rich might just get treated like the poor, so it could end up changing the system.
Isn't it illegal to employee illegal aliens?
I say they get right on that confiscation of assets.
Remember, this is the same court that said government can use eminent domain to take people's homes to hand over to private developers. The homes in that case were destroyed and the land is still vacant because the developer did nothing.
I read a little on a legal site which leads me to the question.......are we saying that if someone is accused of robbing a bank of $500,000, the prosecution gets an indictment that the defendants should be able to use the $500,000 in their safe to pay their lawyer?
This was a tricky case (the decision was not along "party lines") because it appears the defendants didn't do anything obviously illegal, which makes the governments position seem unfair. However, if the court would have decided opposite of how they did, it would have greatly benefited the real scumbags in future cases who acquire large sums of money illegally and then use it all for lawyer fees instead of compensating victims. I think the Court made the proper decision.
I read a little on a legal site which leads me to the question.......are we saying that if someone is accused of robbing a bank of $500,000, the prosecution gets an indictment that the defendants should be able to use the $500,000 in their safe to pay their lawyer?
That is what the defendants were arguing. However, they really weren't arguing for bank robbers, but rather this couple who's activities were of dubious illegality. The defendants seem to be arguing that an exception should be made for this case (and that seems to be what the disenting Justices were arguing as well). But the likely result would have been that bank robbers would be enabled to use the money in their safe to pay for lawyers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.