OT: United States Supreme Court v. The Deep State...

[Ricky]

On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 2:27:08 PM UTC-4, rbowman wrote:

On 06/04/2022 07:40 AM, bitrex wrote:
That a draft opinion got leaked on the Internet is probably just
evidence the Supreme Court hasn\'t written anything worth leaking since
the invention of the Internet, not that their secrecy or security is so
amazing.

If you asked 100 Americans to name one landmark SC case of the past 30
years optimistically maybe 5 could answer. Roper v. Simmons (2005) is
the first one that comes to mind for me, that it\'s unconstitutional to
execute people for crimes they committed when legally a child.
Kelo v. City of New London -- A city government can use the power of
eminent domain to transfer land from one private party to another.

Citizens United v. FEC -- Corporations can pour money into political
campaigns.

National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius et al. -- John
Roberts saves A.C.A, explains to Democrats how to write a law.

King v. Burwell -- More of the same

I don\'t typically remember names, but over the centuries, there have been several cases, including one more recently, concerning civil forfeiture. The original ruling was regarding the seizure of pirate ships, even if the ships had been stolen or otherwise used without the owners\' permission. The Supreme court ruled that the *ships* had essentially broken the law and were subject to seizure, such that the owners did not have \"standing\" to sue for their recovery or compensation. That\'s right, the ships were being punished by asset forfeiture.

This is used today in a similarly insane manner, where the asset can be seized without an official act of the legal system (no trial) and the owner has no \"standing\" to sue for the recovery.

I get that the courts are not always going to agree with my thinking, but this is INSANE, the idea that the property is to be punished for alleged acts, never proven in a court, of the owner. There are many cases where the asset is cash and the only indication there might be something wrong is the fact that the person had cash. I myself had $8,000 in cash to buy a used truck, in a very similar situation to many who\'s assets were seized. The simple fact that it is not common to carry that much cash on your person, in the view of this ruling, is adequate proof to seize the cash with no means of recovering it.

I don\'t want to ever hear that the second amendment is being twisted around from anyone who supports civil asset forfeiture. I don\'t think any logic regarding law and the Constitution has ever been more thoroughly twisted and wrung out than this.

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209