Timbs v. Indiana

Inigoes · Sep 15, 2018

This thread is to make the SCOTUS civil forfeiture case easier to find, when the term starts.

Issue: Whether the Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause is incorporated against the states under the Fourteenth Amendment.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/timbs-v-indiana/

https://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=224993&highlight=Timbs

Docket 17-1091

Inigoes · Oct 15, 2018

Oral arguments are docketed for Wednesday, November 28th

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/calendars/MonthlyArgumentCalDecember2018.html

Allen65 · Oct 15, 2018

Civil seizures, as their used today at the state and local level, are an affront to the 5th, 8th, and 14th amendments. Hopefully we'll see a SCOTUS smackdown against the states when it's over.

MDFF2008 · Oct 15, 2018

Allen65 said:
Civil seizures, as their used today at the state and local level, are an affront to the 5th, 8th, and 14th amendments. Hopefully we'll see a SCOTUS smackdown against the states when it's over.

Imagine if Kavenaugh casts the deciding vote that bans them.

They will suddenly become "An Amazing Tool of Law Enforcement Taken Away."

Inigoes · Nov 24, 2018

SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Wednesday, November 28, 2018

Allen65 · Nov 24, 2018

gprimr1 said:
Imagine if Kavenaugh casts the deciding vote that bans them.

They will suddenly become "An Amazing Tool of Law Enforcement Taken Away."

It's a tool they never should have had in the first place. Its origins in Admiralty Law had it being used in cases where goods or vessels were seized for failure to pay taxes or duties, especially where vessel owners, shippers, or consignees were outside the jurisdiction of the seizing authority.

That bears little resemblance to how civil forfeiture is used today as an end run around due process for suspected, conventional domestic crime, yet it's the basis for considering the practice "long standing".

Inigoes · Nov 28, 2018

Bump

Being heard today

MJD438 · Nov 28, 2018

SCOTUS does not broadcast live, but the link to the arguments should appear here (https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio/2018) on Friday.

frogman68 · Nov 28, 2018

looks like it will be a win , case is about the 8th but the same logic (either Kavanaugh or Goursch) brought up should be brought up

What you don't think the BOR applies to states ?

Inigoes · Nov 28, 2018

Today's transcript is available

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2018/17-1091_1bn2.pdf

krucam · Nov 28, 2018

Josh Blackman goes over the Transcript and feels very positive.

https://mobile.twitter.com/JoshMBlackman/status/1067885294102421504

danb · Nov 28, 2018

From the transcript, there are almost certainly 9 votes for incorporation. Most of the debate was around the scope. There might be two votes to limit the scope of the right, but I would say 9-0 the right is incorporated and maybe 7-2 or 6-3 whether it includes the type of forfeitures considered here (6 would say it does, I think).

rambling_one · Nov 28, 2018

I don’t understand why the entire BOR isn’t incorporated. Then again, IANAL.

danb · Nov 28, 2018

rambling_one said:
I don’t understand why the entire BOR isn’t incorporated. Then again, IANAL.

Gorsuch said as much today. I don't even think that there is any doubt about it. I think only the 3rd amendment is actually left. Kavanaugh said: "Isn't it just too late in the day to argue that any of the Bill of Rights is not incorporated?"

Inigoes · Nov 28, 2018

danb said:
Gorsuch said as much today. I don't even think that there is any doubt about it. I think only the 3rd amendment is actually left. Kavanaugh said: "Isn't it just too late in the day to argue that any of the Bill of Rights is not incorporated?"

The second half off the second amendment still needs to be incorporated

danb · Nov 28, 2018

Inigoes said:
The second half off the second amendment still needs to be incorporated

There was a lot of debate the 2nd amendment this today. At first I thought, do they really mean that McDonald v Chicago?.

Then I got it, Alito was needling Ginsburg and the others. "Only the rights we like are incorporated."

haha.

But I think at this point, we are debating the scope of the 2nd amendment, not whether its incorporated. And interestingly, the point was made multiple times that state law and state cases prior to incorporation are largely irrelevant in determining the scope. States were allowed to do whatever they wanted. Although they might be somewhat informative as to the understanding. What matters is the scope of the Federal right and how it was understood.

RepublicOfFranklin · Nov 28, 2018

Fingers crossed. The transcripts look promising.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

danb · Dec 1, 2018

the oral argument is here : https://apps.oyez.org/player/#/roberts10/oral_argument_audio/24777

motorcoachdoug · Dec 2, 2018

Very interesting.....

Inigoes · Feb 20, 2019

Supreme Court curbs power of government to impose heavy fines and seize property

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled to drastically curb the powers that states and cities have to levy fines and seize property, marking the first time the court has applied the Constitution’s ban on excessive fines at the state level.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/su...ates-to-impose-heavy-fines-and-seize-property

The opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1091_5536.pdf

GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion of the Court

Timbs v. Indiana

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Head'n for the hills

Head'n for the hills

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Head'n for the hills

Ultimate Member

Head'n for the hills

Ultimate Member

товарищ плачевная

Head'n for the hills

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

Head'n for the hills

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

Head'n for the hills

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics