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.
Actually, I should have probably said that he FINALLY said something PERIOD instead on sitting there like a bump on a log!
In any case, he believes that laws governing civil forfeiture need to be reviewed and that the states obviously need to be reigned in. Pretty sure that he thinks this has gone too far...
Interesting because the SCOTUS has refused to take up a case involving someone in Texas (surprise!...that bastion of individual freedoms ) who had 200K confiscated although there's no proof that the money is connected to any underlying crime.
The court wants the case adjudicated in a lower court first.
hopefully, virtually everyone can agree with clarence on the unfairness of civil forfeiture.
Quote:
But because Lisa Olivia Leonard "raises her due process arguments for the first time in this Court," Thomas concluded, the Supreme Court has no business weighing in until the lower court has properly considered those arguments first.
He stays mute mostly because the "LEFT" harangue him 24-7 for not being a black on the Democrat reservation. He legally can't go out there and defend anything he says in public.
Also, Thomas has been vocal for the first time in years on the court, why? Because Anthony Scallia died and before when Scallia asked questions there was nothing left to ask. Scallia covered it all from a Constitutional side vs. a liberal make-it-up from opinion side.
hopefully, virtually everyone can agree with clarence on the unfairness of civil forfeiture.
For drugs I think it is reasonable; but as an example, should a landlord lose the building because a tenant without his permission against the law sold or used drugs?
Government SHOULD confiscate the wealth found surrounding illegal drugs and direct it back to either the national budget for debt pay-down or to build a wonderful wall.
He stays mute mostly because the "LEFT" harangue him 24-7 for not being a black on the Democrat reservation. He legally can't go out there and defend anything he says in public.
Also, Thomas has been vocal for the first time in years on the court, why? Because Anthony Scallia died and before when Scallia asked questions there was nothing left to ask. Scallia covered it all from a Constitutional side vs. a liberal make-it-up from opinion side.
Oh. I see. So he stayed quiet because it was Scalia's job to speak for him, huh?
For drugs I think it is reasonable; but as an example, should a landlord lose the building because a tenant without his permission against the law sold or used drugs?
Government SHOULD confiscate the wealth found surrounding illegal drugs and direct it back to either the national budget for debt pay-down or to build a wonderful wall.
Actually, I should have probably said that he FINALLY said something PERIOD instead on sitting there like a bump on a log!
In any case, he believes that laws governing civil forfeiture need to be reviewed and that the states obviously need to be reigned in. Pretty sure that he thinks this has gone too far...
Interesting because the SCOTUS has refused to take up a case involving someone in Texas (surprise!...that bastion of individual freedoms ) who had 200K confiscated although there's no proof that the money is connected to any underlying crime.
The court wants the case adjudicated in a lower court first.
I agree, we have had some pretty absurd things happen here in NY with asset forfeiture "funds". Unfortunately, Jefferson Beauregard supports the concept and wants to expand it even further
Actually, I should have probably said that he FINALLY said something PERIOD instead on sitting there like a bump on a log!
In any case, he believes that laws governing civil forfeiture need to be reviewed and that the states obviously need to be reigned in. Pretty sure that he thinks this has gone too far...
Interesting because the SCOTUS has refused to take up a case involving someone in Texas (surprise!...that bastion of individual freedoms ) who had 200K confiscated although there's no proof that the money is connected to any underlying crime.
The court wants the case adjudicated in a lower court first.
Texas is already working on this issue to make it just like criminal cases which require a conviction first before anything can be done with the money.
Justice Thomas' opinions are the most honest and constitutionally-sound of all of the justices on the Supreme Court today. And its not even close.
Oh yeah...let's give him credit for honesty. After all, he's a Supreme Court justice where we'd expect him to be a pathological liar.
Constitutionally sound? That's your opinion.
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.
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.
