Discuss H&R posts and other Reason articles here.
- Posts: 13331
- Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
- Location: Great White Pacific Northwest
Clarence Thomas vs. Jeff Sessions on Civil Asset Forfeiture
Thomas did not mince words. The legal justifications offered in defense of civil asset forfeiture, he pointed out, cannot be squared with the text of the Constitution, which "presumably would require the [Supreme Court] to align its distinct doctrine governing civil forfeiture with its doctrines governing other forms of punitive state action and property deprivation." Those other doctrines, Thomas noted, impose significant checks on the government, such as heightened standards of proof, numerous procedural safeguards, and the right to a trial by jury. By contrast, civil asset forfeiture proceedings provide no such constitutional protections. Thomas left little doubt that when the proper case came before him, he would rule civil asset forfeiture unconstitutional.
IIRC, there already was a SCOTUS decision approving the Civil Asset Forefeiture.
Attorney General Sessions should take Justice Thomas' words to heart.
If Sessions did, I'd worry about Thomas' health.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo
Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one
Most people don't realize Stephen King downplayed the horror that is Maine. - Jennifer
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest