Eighth Amendment Incorporation Now Settled Law, According To All Sitting Justices (2 Viewers)

[Henry Ford]

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

And specifically because the 14th Amendment requires it.  

The 14th Amendment says the states can’t abridge the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States - which to the courts meant they can’t violate the Bill of Rights among other things.  

 

[rockaction]

Update: The Supreme Court decided 9-0 in favor of extending the "excessive fines" part of the Eighth Amendment to the states, if I'm reading this correctly. 

https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/02/opinion-analysis-eighth-amendments-ban-on-excessive-fines-applies-to-the-states/

 

[rockaction]

I guess disproportionate asset forfeiture used as municipal and state revenue isn't as interesting as lying actors or Russian bogeymen.  

 

[Mookie]

I guess disproportionate asset forfeiture used as municipal and state revenue isn't as interesting as lying actors or Russian bogeymen.  

That issue (a forfeiture must be proportionate to the crime committed) was decided in 1998 in the Bajakajian case.  This case merely dealt with the narrow question of whether the Indiana SCT erred when it held that the Eighth Amendment did not apply to the states - The SCOTUS slapped around the Indiana SCT.  Indiana essentially conceded the issue at oral argument and concocted some new theories which the SCOTUS rejected outright.  It was kind of a No Brainer, but it is Indiana ....

 

[rockaction]

That issue (a forfeiture must be proportionate to the crime committed) was decided in 1998 in the Bajakajian case.  This case merely dealt with the narrow question of whether the Indiana SCT erred when it held that the Eighth Amendment did not apply to the states - The SCOTUS slapped around the Indiana SCT.  Indiana essentially conceded the issue at oral argument and concocted some new theories which the SCOTUS rejected outright.  It was kind of a No Brainer, but it is Indiana ....

Yeah, it seemed to hinge on that. It seemed Indiana's S Ct. even agreed the fine was disproportionate to the crime and all that was left was the issue of incorporation of the excessive fine clause through the 14th. Thomas and Gorsuch argued that this could be better accomplished through the P&I clause rather than the Due Process clause of the 14th, but the decision was unanimous.  

Regardless, this strikes me as good news. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

We have an 8th Amendment thread, that's awesome.

 

[Henry Ford]

And specifically because the 14th Amendment requires it.  

The 14th Amendment says the states can’t abridge the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States - which to the courts meant they can’t violate the Bill of Rights among other things.  

Update: The Supreme Court decided 9-0 in favor of extending the "excessive fines" part of the Eighth Amendment to the states, if I'm reading this correctly. 

https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/02/opinion-analysis-eighth-amendments-ban-on-excessive-fines-applies-to-the-states/

I, for one, am shocked.  Shocked, I say. 

 

[Slapdash]

I guess disproportionate asset forfeiture used as municipal and state revenue isn't as interesting as lying actors or Russian bogeymen.  

A lot of this reads like the drunk lawyers thread.  I decided to not go to law school so it is a bit tough to follow.  This bump seems to be about the Supreme Court telling the states and local governments that their practices on asset forfeiture have been violating the 8th Amendment.  Is that the correct interpretation?  This seems way overdue.

Also, always appreciate the unique topics you bring up rock.

 

[rockaction]

A lot of this reads like the drunk lawyers thread.  I decided to not go to law school so it is a bit tough to follow.  This bump seems to be about the Supreme Court telling the states and local governments that their practices on asset forfeiture have been violating the 8th Amendment.  Is that the correct interpretation?  This seems way overdue.

Also, always appreciate the unique topics you bring up rock.

As for the italicized, thanks, man. Yeah, I was just grousing a bit. Slow day. I'm sort of a libertarian fusionist, so I've long been against punitive and egregious asset forfeiture measures undertaken by states and municipalities. 

As for the bolded, yeah, it's now extending the prohibition regarding the excessive fines clause of the Eighth Amendment to the states through the 14th Amendment's Due Process clause.

Henry had it nailed back when the topic first started, which is probably why he's taking a bit of a well-deserved victory lap. 

Huzzah for Henry! 

-RA

PS I got the Panda Bear Tomboy box set on vinyl today. Just remembering our discussion from another thread. It's pretty slick stuff. No Eighth Amendment questions there.  

 

[Henry Ford]

As for the italicized, thanks, man. Yeah, I was just grousing a bit. Slow day. I'm sort of a libertarian fusionist, so I've long been against punitive and egregious asset forfeiture measures undertaken by states and municipalities. 

As for the bolded, yeah, it's now extending the prohibition regarding the excessive fines clause of the Eighth Amendment to the states through the 14th Amendment's Due Process clause.

Henry had it nailed back when the topic first started, which is probably why he's taking a bit of a well-deserved victory lap. 

Huzzah for Henry! 

-RA

PS I got the Panda Bear Tomboy box set on vinyl today. Just remembering our discussion from another thread. It's pretty slick stuff. No Eighth Amendment questions there.  

It’s not much of a victory lap when it’s 9-0. I’m actually just glad to see the court remind us that its decisions, unlike Congress’s, don’t constantly fall prey to silly partisanism. 

It’s the right result.  I don’t see how a different one would be consistent with the Constitution. 

 

[Slapdash]

As for the italicized, thanks, man. Yeah, I was just grousing a bit. Slow day. I'm sort of a libertarian fusionist, so I've long been against punitive and egregious asset forfeiture measures undertaken by states and municipalities. 

As for the bolded, yeah, it's now extending the prohibition regarding the excessive fines clause of the Eighth Amendment to the states through the 14th Amendment's Due Process clause.

Henry had it nailed back when the topic first started, which is probably why he's taking a bit of a well-deserved victory lap. 

Huzzah for Henry! 

-RA

PS I got the Panda Bear Tomboy box set on vinyl today. Just remembering our discussion from another thread. It's pretty slick stuff. No Eighth Amendment questions there.  

This sounds like great news.  I have a lot of libertarian tendencies besides wealth redistribution and climate change, so asset forfeitures and the general militarism of local governments has long been a complaint of mine.

On the music note, I've actually been on a metal kick the last few days after seeing In Flames on monday night.  I have so far avoided going into vinyl collections because I have too many collections already of whisky, video games,  and etc....

 

[joffer]

I guess we can all get along on something.

 

[rockaction]

I guess we can all get along on something.

Evidently.

From Instapundit's Gail Heriot https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3105612

Footnote one immediately speaks to the bipartisan nature of agreement about the disagreement with state and municipal excessive fines and reliance of asset forfeiture to raise revenue for government entities.  

Heriot also cautions, on the blog, to not get ahead of ourselves and that the decision is very limited, as is the Supremes’ wont, of course.  

More from Volokh, a bit of a caveat: 

https://reason.com/volokh/2019/02/20/supreme-court-rules-that-excessive-fines

"The Court did leave one crucial issue for future consideration by lower courts: the question of what exactly counts as "excessive" in the civil forfeiture context. That is likely to be a hotly contested issue in the lower federal courts over the next few years. The ultimate effect of today's decision depends in large part on how that question is resolved. If courts rule that only a few unusually extreme cases qualify as excessive, the impact of Timbs might be relatively marginal. But, hopefully, that will not prove to be the case."

 

[Zow]

Update: The Supreme Court decided 9-0 in favor of extending the "excessive fines" part of the Eighth Amendment to the states, if I'm reading this correctly. 

https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/02/opinion-analysis-eighth-amendments-ban-on-excessive-fines-applies-to-the-states/

Big news in my area of practice. 

 

[cosjobs]

It's very effective for a small group of people.  Ketamine therapy is, too.  Also psilocybin.  

link and list of providers?