Excellent news! And a unanimous opinion as well.

I haven't read the full opinion, but here's a short article on it:
https://www.npr.org/2019/02/20/696360090...y-to-state

Two quotes that I like:

- From the Supreme Court opinion: "Protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history for good reason: Such fines undermine other liberties." I must say: it warms my heart to see the phrase "Anglo-American history" mentioned as a touchstone of civil liberty.

- From the NPR article: "As for the snow, it's not unusual for the high court to be open when the rest of Washington is closed. It's sort of a tradition. The last two chief justices were raised in the snowy Midwest, and the justices seem to enjoy being the hardiest branch of government." Take that, Article I and II branches!

The Opinion:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18...1_5536.pdf

Problem is that it is only limited to 'excessive' amounts of forfeiture. I would prefer to see forfeiture accorded more akin to the rights guarantees in criminal matters.

I have a fundamental problem with, even for 'non-excessive' forfeiture, the burden is on the person to show that the forfeited material was *not* a 'product of criminal activity'. The burden of proof is bass-ackwards. Have the legal burden fall on the state if it wishes to perform a forfeiture.

(02-21-2019 05:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Problem is that it is only limited to 'excessive' amounts of forfeiture. I would prefer to see forfeiture accorded more akin to the rights guarantees in criminal matters.

I have a fundamental problem with, even for 'non-excessive' forfeiture, the burden is on the person to show that the forfeited material was *not* a 'product of criminal activity'. The burden of proof is bass-ackwards. Have the legal burden fall on the state if it wishes to perform a forfeiture.

Agree with this. It is odd that the burden of proof in asset seizure and forfeiture cases rests with the accused and not with the party alleging.

(02-21-2019 08:39 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(02-21-2019 05:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Problem is that it is only limited to 'excessive' amounts of forfeiture. I would prefer to see forfeiture accorded more akin to the rights guarantees in criminal matters.

I have a fundamental problem with, even for 'non-excessive' forfeiture, the burden is on the person to show that the forfeited material was *not* a 'product of criminal activity'. The burden of proof is bass-ackwards. Have the legal burden fall on the state if it wishes to perform a forfeiture.

Agree with this. It is odd that the burden of proof in asset seizure and forfeiture cases rests with the accused and not with the party alleging.

The idea that the burden of proof should rest with the private citizen rather than the government is an article of faith among leftists. One might also say among fascists and tyrants, but that might be redundant,

(02-21-2019 11:03 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-21-2019 08:39 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(02-21-2019 05:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Problem is that it is only limited to 'excessive' amounts of forfeiture. I would prefer to see forfeiture accorded more akin to the rights guarantees in criminal matters.

I have a fundamental problem with, even for 'non-excessive' forfeiture, the burden is on the person to show that the forfeited material was *not* a 'product of criminal activity'. The burden of proof is bass-ackwards. Have the legal burden fall on the state if it wishes to perform a forfeiture.

Agree with this. It is odd that the burden of proof in asset seizure and forfeiture cases rests with the accused and not with the party alleging.

The idea that the burden of proof should rest with the private citizen rather than the government is an article of faith among leftists. One might also say among fascists and tyrants, but that might be redundant,

Really? An article of faith? Can you explain the positions that "leftists" have in criminal justice that require the burden of proof to fall on a citizen as opposed to the government?

"Leftists" are often cited as being too differential to those accused of crimes, so how could that broad, sweeping generalization be correct in any sense of the word? I think you may be confusing the court of public opinion and recent events with an actual court of law and public policy positions.

(02-22-2019 10:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Really? An article of faith? Can you explain the positions that "leftists" have in criminal justice that require the burden of proof to fall on a citizen as opposed to the government?

Let's start with the left's proposed gun registration and transfer reporting. If a gun registered to you is used in a crime, you would be guilty of a crime, unless and until you could prove your innocence.

Quote:"Leftists" are often cited as being too differential to those accused of crimes, so how could that broad, sweeping generalization be correct in any sense of the word? I think you may be confusing the court of public opinion and recent events with an actual court of law and public policy positions.

I think "leftists" are both too deferential to those who have committed actual crimes, and at the same time too quick to invent new crimes under which an otherwise innocent person is presumed guilty until proved innocent.

(02-22-2019 04:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-22-2019 10:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Really? An article of faith? Can you explain the positions that "leftists" have in criminal justice that require the burden of proof to fall on a citizen as opposed to the government?

Let's start with the left's proposed gun registration and transfer reporting. If a gun registered to you is used in a crime, you would be guilty of a crime, unless and until you could prove your innocence.

Quote:"Leftists" are often cited as being too differential to those accused of crimes, so how could that broad, sweeping generalization be correct in any sense of the word? I think you may be confusing the court of public opinion and recent events with an actual court of law and public policy positions.

I think "leftists" are both too deferential to those who have committed actual crimes, and at the same time too quick to invent new crimes under which an otherwise innocent person is presumed guilty until proved innocent.

I'm not familiar with what gun laws you're talking about - can you provide a link that explains them?

I found an article in the Tennessean that talks about enacting laws that basically make storing a gun in a reckless manner a crime. It doesn't say anything about where the burden of proof lies, but my guess is that you would be able to charge someone with a crime if there was evidence that it occurred. And then the state would need to present a compelling case.

(02-22-2019 04:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-22-2019 10:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Really? An article of faith? Can you explain the positions that "leftists" have in criminal justice that require the burden of proof to fall on a citizen as opposed to the government?

Let's start with the left's proposed gun registration and transfer reporting. If a gun registered to you is used in a crime, you would be guilty of a crime, unless and until you could prove your innocence.

Quote:"Leftists" are often cited as being too differential to those accused of crimes, so how could that broad, sweeping generalization be correct in any sense of the word? I think you may be confusing the court of public opinion and recent events with an actual court of law and public policy positions.

I think "leftists" are both too deferential to those who have committed actual crimes, and at the same time too quick to invent new crimes under which an otherwise innocent person is presumed guilty until proved innocent.

Title IX proceedings at universities re: alleged unappropriate sexual behavior. In addition to the presumption not carrying, there are a whole slew of due process issues that are left in the wake (right to an attorney, right to confront witnesses, right to present evidence, right to review evidence used against one).

Another would be the proposition favored by the left that one whom is on a no-fly list would automatically be barred from gun possession or ownership.

Another is in the raft of 'red flag' gun confiscation schemas, where the proponents deem the 'need for speed' to supercede many due process issues.

Another would be the exhibit of behavior in the Kavanaugh issue -- due process issues that seem to be left in the cold of winter there are: sufficiency of evidence, the mandate that any allegation should be believed ipso facto, cross examination of witnesses, and I am sure that there are one or more left.

So while I agree with the fact that George's comments might be a tad broad, there are more than enough examples of 'due process' short circuits that are evident.

(02-22-2019 04:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-22-2019 04:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-22-2019 10:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Really? An article of faith? Can you explain the positions that "leftists" have in criminal justice that require the burden of proof to fall on a citizen as opposed to the government?

Let's start with the left's proposed gun registration and transfer reporting. If a gun registered to you is used in a crime, you would be guilty of a crime, unless and until you could prove your innocence.

Quote:"Leftists" are often cited as being too differential to those accused of crimes, so how could that broad, sweeping generalization be correct in any sense of the word? I think you may be confusing the court of public opinion and recent events with an actual court of law and public policy positions.

I think "leftists" are both too deferential to those who have committed actual crimes, and at the same time too quick to invent new crimes under which an otherwise innocent person is presumed guilty until proved innocent.

Title IX proceedings at universities re: alleged unappropriate sexual behavior. In addition to the presumption not carrying, there are a whole slew of due process issues that are left in the wake (right to an attorney, right to confront witnesses, right to present evidence, right to review evidence used against one).

Another would be the proposition favored by the left that one whom is on a no-fly list would automatically be barred from gun possession or ownership.

Another is in the raft of 'red flag' gun confiscation schemas, where the proponents deem the 'need for speed' to supercede many due process issues.

Another would be the exhibit of behavior in the Kavanaugh issue -- due process issues that seem to be left in the cold of winter there are: sufficiency of evidence, the mandate that any allegation should be believed ipso facto, cross examination of witnesses, and I am sure that there are one or more left.

So while I agree with the fact that George's comments might be a tad broad, there are more than enough examples of 'due process' short circuits that are evident.

Well, I think in all fairness that ascribing all these positions to "the left" is still too broad. There are plenty of left-leaning civil libertarians who have and continue to decry these things and push back against things like the accused not being able to confront and cross-examine witnesses in college sexual misconduct proceedings (a California state appellate court, which otherwise might be presumed leftist, just issued a major civil libertarian ruling in this area), and municipal governments (often Democratic-controlled, by the way) running roughshod over disproportionately poor and minority citizens with fines, forfeitures, etc. Right-leaning civil libertarians may have different bêtes noir (eminent domain takings, for one) but this is an area where some from the left and right can and very much do find common cause.

Now, certainly *other* parts of the left *and* right have no problem letting their preferred ends justify due-process-violating means; for instance, anti-gun zealots and "war on drugs" types are both all too happy to see the government confiscate property first and ask questions later.

(02-22-2019 04:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-22-2019 10:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Really? An article of faith? Can you explain the positions that "leftists" have in criminal justice that require the burden of proof to fall on a citizen as opposed to the government?

Let's start with the left's proposed gun registration and transfer reporting. If a gun registered to you is used in a crime, you would be guilty of a crime, unless and until you could prove your innocence.

Quote:"Leftists" are often cited as being too differential to those accused of crimes, so how could that broad, sweeping generalization be correct in any sense of the word? I think you may be confusing the court of public opinion and recent events with an actual court of law and public policy positions.

I think "leftists" are both too deferential to those who have committed actual crimes, and at the same time too quick to invent new crimes under which an otherwise innocent person is presumed guilty until proved innocent.

That was deferent...I mean different.

(02-22-2019 07:00 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(02-22-2019 04:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-22-2019 04:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-22-2019 10:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Really? An article of faith? Can you explain the positions that "leftists" have in criminal justice that require the burden of proof to fall on a citizen as opposed to the government?

Let's start with the left's proposed gun registration and transfer reporting. If a gun registered to you is used in a crime, you would be guilty of a crime, unless and until you could prove your innocence.

Quote:"Leftists" are often cited as being too differential to those accused of crimes, so how could that broad, sweeping generalization be correct in any sense of the word? I think you may be confusing the court of public opinion and recent events with an actual court of law and public policy positions.

I think "leftists" are both too deferential to those who have committed actual crimes, and at the same time too quick to invent new crimes under which an otherwise innocent person is presumed guilty until proved innocent.

Title IX proceedings at universities re: alleged unappropriate sexual behavior. In addition to the presumption not carrying, there are a whole slew of due process issues that are left in the wake (right to an attorney, right to confront witnesses, right to present evidence, right to review evidence used against one).

Another would be the proposition favored by the left that one whom is on a no-fly list would automatically be barred from gun possession or ownership.

Another is in the raft of 'red flag' gun confiscation schemas, where the proponents deem the 'need for speed' to supercede many due process issues.

Another would be the exhibit of behavior in the Kavanaugh issue -- due process issues that seem to be left in the cold of winter there are: sufficiency of evidence, the mandate that any allegation should be believed ipso facto, cross examination of witnesses, and I am sure that there are one or more left.

So while I agree with the fact that George's comments might be a tad broad, there are more than enough examples of 'due process' short circuits that are evident.

Well, I think in all fairness that ascribing all these positions to "the left" is still too broad. There are plenty of left-leaning civil libertarians who have and continue to decry these things and push back against things like the accused not being able to confront and cross-examine witnesses in college sexual misconduct proceedings (a California state appellate court, which otherwise might be presumed leftist, just issued a major civil libertarian ruling in this area), and municipal governments (often Democratic-controlled, by the way) running roughshod over disproportionately poor and minority citizens with fines, forfeitures, etc. Right-leaning civil libertarians may have different bêtes noir (eminent domain takings, for one) but this is an area where some from the left and right can and very much do find common cause.

Now, certainly *other* parts of the left *and* right have no problem letting their preferred ends justify due-process-violating means; for instance, anti-gun zealots and "war on drugs" types are both all too happy to see the government confiscate property first and ask questions later.

Illini:

I was going to make a comment off the cuff on this, but waited until I could verify what I thought I remembered.

The main reason I included the Title IX issue as one in the 'progressive camp' since I was under the impression that the Obama administration had influenced the process a great deal, that influence being to the detriment of one or more 'due process' concerns.

But in ancillary reading today I was reminded of the Obama administration's 'Dear Colleague' letter to university's which set 'suggestions' on the practice of Title IX enforcement. In that letter, the Obama administration clearly delineated to the universities that not only cross-examination of a complainant be limited, restricted, or ignored, but also set forthe the policy that the complainant should remain unidentifiable.

In this context, the 'turn' of Title IX proceedings was definitely a push by the Department of Education during the Obama administration.

(02-28-2019 12:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-22-2019 07:00 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(02-22-2019 04:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-22-2019 04:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-22-2019 10:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Really? An article of faith? Can you explain the positions that "leftists" have in criminal justice that require the burden of proof to fall on a citizen as opposed to the government?

Let's start with the left's proposed gun registration and transfer reporting. If a gun registered to you is used in a crime, you would be guilty of a crime, unless and until you could prove your innocence.

Quote:"Leftists" are often cited as being too differential to those accused of crimes, so how could that broad, sweeping generalization be correct in any sense of the word? I think you may be confusing the court of public opinion and recent events with an actual court of law and public policy positions.

I think "leftists" are both too deferential to those who have committed actual crimes, and at the same time too quick to invent new crimes under which an otherwise innocent person is presumed guilty until proved innocent.

Title IX proceedings at universities re: alleged unappropriate sexual behavior. In addition to the presumption not carrying, there are a whole slew of due process issues that are left in the wake (right to an attorney, right to confront witnesses, right to present evidence, right to review evidence used against one).

Another would be the proposition favored by the left that one whom is on a no-fly list would automatically be barred from gun possession or ownership.

Another is in the raft of 'red flag' gun confiscation schemas, where the proponents deem the 'need for speed' to supercede many due process issues.

Another would be the exhibit of behavior in the Kavanaugh issue -- due process issues that seem to be left in the cold of winter there are: sufficiency of evidence, the mandate that any allegation should be believed ipso facto, cross examination of witnesses, and I am sure that there are one or more left.

So while I agree with the fact that George's comments might be a tad broad, there are more than enough examples of 'due process' short circuits that are evident.

Well, I think in all fairness that ascribing all these positions to "the left" is still too broad. There are plenty of left-leaning civil libertarians who have and continue to decry these things and push back against things like the accused not being able to confront and cross-examine witnesses in college sexual misconduct proceedings (a California state appellate court, which otherwise might be presumed leftist, just issued a major civil libertarian ruling in this area), and municipal governments (often Democratic-controlled, by the way) running roughshod over disproportionately poor and minority citizens with fines, forfeitures, etc. Right-leaning civil libertarians may have different bêtes noir (eminent domain takings, for one) but this is an area where some from the left and right can and very much do find common cause.

Now, certainly *other* parts of the left *and* right have no problem letting their preferred ends justify due-process-violating means; for instance, anti-gun zealots and "war on drugs" types are both all too happy to see the government confiscate property first and ask questions later.

Illini:

I was going to make a comment off the cuff on this, but waited until I could verify what I thought I remembered.

The main reason I included the Title IX issue as one in the 'progressive camp' since I was under the impression that the Obama administration had influenced the process a great deal, that influence being to the detriment of one or more 'due process' concerns.

But in ancillary reading today I was reminded of the Obama administration's 'Dear Colleague' letter to university's which set 'suggestions' on the practice of Title IX enforcement. In that letter, the Obama administration clearly delineated to the universities that not only cross-examination of a complainant be limited, restricted, or ignored, but also set forthe the policy that the complainant should remain unidentifiable.

In this context, the 'turn' of Title IX proceedings was definitely a push by the Department of Education during the Obama administration.

I did know that, but my original point was that there has been, historically, a segment of the left that would stand up against such due process abrogation, even if doing so meant getting in the way of other leftists.

Then I did my own extra reading and found that the ACLU, apparently now overcome by Trump Derangement Syndrome like most everyone else on the left, has abandoned those old principles when it is a Trump appointee (Betsy DeVos) that tries to uphold them, so maybe I *did* give the civil-libertarian left too much credit.

The ACLU has also abandoned its former rock-solid principle of a hardline defense of First Amendment rights. They have specifically noted that for their purposes, that they will employ “case-selection guidelines” which explicitly says that the cases the organization takes up may be influenced by “the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values.”

So, when in an earlier time the free speech goals of the ACLU were position agnostic, they are apparently moving to the position that only *some* speech that they approve of is worthy of their attention.

Not that this is 'anti-Trump' as the apparent stance re: DeVos as you brought up earlier, but simply a topic on which the ACLU is seemingly abandoning their 'agnostic' approach to their 'mission'. Another example is the complete silence on the attorney/client issue in the Cohen office raid.

I used to be able to say that I was in a very select group of people that donated membership fees and time to both the NRA and the ACLU. I abandoned that unique position during Shrub's first term when the ACLU really started to deviate in the use of their position in a very partisan political bent. That continues unabated.