The US Supreme Court Thread

I was a teenager. Free tickets, beer & pretzels was A-OK.

 

I'm pretty sure we know where Satan is selling beer.

 

Chicago fans don't throw things. They just call in sports talk shows and decry whomever they're scapegoating for the loss in the hopes of encouraging said scapegoat to commit suicide.

 

@American Brummie

Too early to say you called it (I think it was you that said Roberts may slide to the left a little)?

https://www.economist.com/democracy...ocks-abortion-clinic-regulations-in-louisiana

 

Ah. the Keith Emerson treatment.

I think Roberts is most concerned with the perception of the legitimacy of the court. He has the potential to disappoint and enrage the Right by going full Souter.

 

I'm not sure this reflects a leftward slide.. Rather, he could be trying to hurry it along to get up to the SC so they can get a second bite at the apple. Roberts was in the minority of the Texas admittance law that set the precedent that these laws are unconstitutional, while Kennedy joined the liberal Justices in the majority. Now that Kennedy has been replaced by a Justice likely to rule in favor of the law, this could result in the SC flipping precedent to constitutional.

 

Did anybody find Susan Collins for comment on Kavanaugh demanding more there needs to be more information.

 

End to civil asset forfeiture?

The Supreme Court rules the Indiana seizure of a convict's Land Rover is an "excessive fine" https://t.co/wqIjtgrPvl pic.twitter.com/U8LZowTYYz

— ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) February 21, 2019

 

Scales it back, maybe? It should reduce the most egregious examples where people who aren’t even suspected of a crime have their assets seized and shift the burden of proof onto the police that seize the assets instead of the people whose assets were seized.

 

From the analysis of this that I've seen, they've said that while the ruling was only about excessive fines, the end result will be a shift to treating asset forfeitures as criminal proceedings. Primarily because, up until now, the seizures have been treated as a civil case against the property. So, in Timbs case, the court filing was likely State of Indiana v Land Rover rather than State of Indiana v Tyson Timbs. Now that the Supreme Court has tied the seizures to the 8th amendment, the analysis I've seen says the seizures will have to be tied to a criminal proceeding so that it can be part of the fee/fine for the crime. It should also end the instances where property is seized when there isn't a conviction (or even an arrest) just because the police suspect that the property was used in a criminal activity.

 

Even worse. You don't have to be charged for anything at all and still have your assets confiscated. One article that I saw on a particular town in Texas that is notorious for abusing asset forfeiture had an example of a family that was driving from Houston to New Orleans. They got pulled over and the officer searched their car and found $8,000 in their car. The officer arrested them on suspicion of drug dealing (all he found was the cash), but they were released later that day. Their $8,000, on the other hand, was seized.

 

I think I asked this before and this was answered...but honestly I’ve forgotten.

There is more talk amongst Dem candidates of adding Supreme Court seats.

What is the process?

What stops trump and the republicans from adding 6 in a lame duck session (6 that would....for example....take the position that he could pardon himself)

 

There must be, because The American Conservative has a dumb article denouncing it that posted today.

But I haven't come across anything since Merrick Garland got Turtled in 2016.

 

Yes. Dems are still smarting over Garland and are threatening to add Justices.

On the other hand, it might make sense to do that for other reasons as well.. the SCOTUS is the only court than all the judges on the court hear every case. An argument could be made that having a rotation of judges would mean more cases get heard.

 

Shocking, eh?

 

Roberts and RGB will at least sometimes vote where they think the law belongs, even if it goes against their political views. I'm not sure about the remaining lefty judges, and I know for damn sure that the right (aside from Kavanaugh, too early to tell) votes strictly Republican.

The Supreme Court over the past 20 years or so has been so overtly political that it's hard to hold that institution in much respect.

 

CLARENCE THOMAS HAS OPENED HIS MOUTH AND SPOKEN FOR THE SECOND TIME THIS DECADE. HE APPEARS SENTIENT AND IN SATISFACTORY CONDITION.





(Unfortunately it was a stupid question that I could have answered from New York.)