What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Eighth Amendment Incorporation Now Settled Law, According To All Sitting Justices (1 Viewer)

rockaction

Footballguy
“Isn’t it just too late in the day to argue that any of the Bill of Rights is not incorporated?," said Kavanugh.    

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, this is the case about states outright stealing from people.  I can't believe this hasn't been litigated before.

 
Yes, but we do not call it stealing, we call it removing the instrumentality of a crime, or in some cases the proceeds of crime. See, with the name change we pretend that the rose by any other name does not smell at all.
I take your point, just wanted to post that a significant event had happened at the Supreme Court, 

I disagree with asset forfeiture. YMMV.  

 
This has been one of the federal government's great tools to get states to fight the war on drugs.  Take away this ability and states lose one of their great weapons to fund their war on drugs.

For that reason alone I am okay with a ruling that would end this.

 
I take your point, just wanted to post that a significant event had happened at the Supreme Court, 

I disagree with asset forfeiture. YMMV.  
I think that many states and local jurisdictions have lost any sense of proportionality when it comes to asset forfeiture as they cannot see beyond their own bottom lines.  I would hope that some rationality could be imposed by State Supreme Courts and by State legislatures.  Thus far that has been slow coming.  We have invited the Supremes to look at this and I do think they are correct that incorporation has more or less happened and become a settle concept that now only needs more comprehensive application.

 
I think that many states and local jurisdictions have lost any sense of proportionality when it comes to asset forfeiture as they cannot see beyond their own bottom lines.  I would hope that some rationality could be imposed by State Supreme Courts and by State legislatures.  Thus far that has been slow coming.  We have invited the Supremes to look at this and I do think they are correct that incorporation has more or less happened and become a settle concept that now only needs more comprehensive application.
Yeah, incorporation is the standard. It would be nice if all the Amendments were, IMHO. I agree with you on that front.  

 
It's always nice when Justice Gorsuch and that drunk guy who had a hard time getting into the party agree with me.

I do worry that the men's bathroom at the Supreme Court is going to look like a gas station in Tijuana on Friday nights.

 
I believe he was simply stating a euphemism, and he actually performs acts of intimate congress with hops and barley.
Well I oppose that as it would tend to ruin them for the Wort.

DW: "Damn, this beer tastes off, I'm going to spit it out."

Slattern:  "Not me, I'm going to swallow mine."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
No, I do.  I am going to oppose anything he has to say, so I believe that he does not like beer.
I'm pretty sure he likes beer.   I'm pretty sure he likes it a whole lot.    I wouldn't be surprised if he liked rubbing alcohol as much as Kitty Dukakis.

 
I'm pretty sure he likes beer.   I'm pretty sure he likes it a whole lot.    I wouldn't be surprised if he liked rubbing alcohol as much as Kitty Dukakis.
For some reason I want to look up Kitty Dukakis in Urban dictionary because if it doesn't have a definition, it should.

Oh, and you got me.  I admit I spoke too broadly.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Good lord.  I had no idea that she turned to electroshock therapy and is touting its effectiveness.   

 
Blah blah blah.  Yet another thread about incorporation as it applies to state civil forfeiture proceedings that transitions into a discussion of Kitty Dukakis drinking rubbing alcohol and promoting electroshock therapy.  Haven't we already had enough of these? :yawn:
It really is an echo chamber. 

 
I think that many states and local jurisdictions have lost any sense of proportionality when it comes to asset forfeiture as they cannot see beyond their own bottom lines.  I would hope that some rationality could be imposed by State Supreme Courts and by State legislatures.  Thus far that has been slow coming.  We have invited the Supremes to look at this and I do think they are correct that incorporation has more or less happened and become a settle concept that now only needs more comprehensive application.
Are you sure you're a prosecutor?

 
Are you sure you're a prosecutor?
When I took the oath to protect and defend the Constitution I took that to mean the spirit and the letter of the law.  Within those bounds I prosecute, or I did, as zealously as anybody and more than most, but within those bounds.  Now, for the past two years, I only prosecute when called upon as a consultant or as conflict counsel.   

 
Last edited by a moderator:
When I took the oath to protect and defend the Constitution I took that to mean the spirit and the letter of the law.  Within that bounds I prosecute, or I did, as zealously as anybody and more than most, but within those bounds.
We need prosecutors as well as we need defenders. Both have a part in our system.  

 
"Governor Dukakis, if Kitty Dukakis was recklessly killed by electroshock therapy, would you support civil forfeiture of her therapist?"

 
When I took the oath to protect and defend the Constitution I took that to mean the spirit and the letter of the law.  Within those bounds I prosecute, or I did, as zealously as anybody and more than most, but within those bounds.  Now, for the past two years, I only prosecute when called upon as a consultant or as conflict counsel.   
I asked that hyperbolic question in jest given that the majority of prosecutors I know would not favor law which diminished their ability to forfeit defendants' property. 

 
This has been one of the federal government's great tools to get states to fight the war on drugs.  Take away this ability and states lose one of their great weapons to fund their war on drugs.

For that reason alone I am okay with a ruling that would end this.
I suppose Kennedy is gone, but never underestimate the Court's ability to say that the Excessive Fines clause is incorporated and could be triggered by civil asset forfeiture in some instances without telling you how to know when those instances are.  I suppose if Kavanaugh keeps me from having to read another Kennedy decision where I don't know what the freaking rule of decision is, then I can at least forgive him that bar fight with Chris Dudley and the dude who looked like the lead singer of UB40.

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
This has been one of the federal government's great tools to get states to fight the war on drugs.  Take away this ability and states lose one of their great weapons to fund their war on drugs.

For that reason alone I am okay with a ruling that would end this.
I suppose Kennedy is gone, but never underestimate the Court's ability to say that the Excessive Fines clause is incorporated and could be triggered by civil asset forfeiture in some instances without telling you how to know when those instances are.  I suppose if Kavanaugh keeps me from having to read another Kennedy decision where I don't know what the freaking rule of decision is, then I can at least forgive him that bar fight with Chris Dudley and the dude who looked like the lead singer of UB40.
I don't disagree with your point, my only thought might be is that if it is not so clearly a state's right to seize any asset they choose the gamble to put forth all state's resources into fighting "crime" that is largely dependent on this seizure ability could be reduced. (and I am okay with that)

 
I think what's interesting about this is that deference to state legislators, long a conservative judicial philosophy since Bork, might be coming to an end. In the wake of Kelo and judicial deference to legislative process, it would seem that natural rights are now in the forefront of the conservative movement, a potentially welcome return from the deference shown to legislators at the state and federal level.  

My two cents. 

 
It's very effective for a small group of people.  Ketamine therapy is, too.  Also psilocybin.  
MDMA is also on that list.

On the main subject, this has been something that has needed definition for a long time (much like eminent domain).  Way, way too much potential for abuse.  I need a remedial education on "incorporation" inside the world of legalese, though. 

 
MDMA is also on that list.

On the main subject, this has been something that has needed definition for a long time (much like eminent domain).  Way, way too much potential for abuse.  I need a remedial education on "incorporation" inside the world of legalese, though. 
IIRC, the Amendments were only supposed to apply to the Federal government, not the States. Incorporation is a twentieth century practice of taking select Amendments and applying them to the states.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

 
A couple more choice pieces from that NBC article:

>>"Here we are in 2018 still litigating incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Really? Come on, General," Justice Neil Gorsuch said to Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher.<<

>>A majority of the court seemed to agree. Justice Stephen Breyer asked Fisher if police could seize the car of someone caught speeding. "What is to happen if a state needing revenue says anyone who speeds has to forfeit the Bugatti, Mercedes, or a special Ferrari, or even jalopy?"

Those cars could be seized, Fisher said.<<

>>Timbs fought to keep the vehicle, and the trial judge said the punishment of losing his car would be "grossly disproportionate" to the seriousness of his offense, given that the value of the Land Rover was more than four times the maximum fine for the drug conviction. But the Indiana Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Constitution's ban on excessive fines doesn't apply to the states.<<

- It’s their own lousy lawyers, but sheriffs ain’t gonna be too happy with this when this gets shut down. Who tracks what happens with this property? I doubt there’s a whole lot of accountability on these processes across the country.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top