Civil Forfeiture and the Supreme Court

More or less, yes. However, to be perfectly fair, this is basically true in almost every nation in the world.

There are many, many laws in many, many countries that if you deal with a biased judge you are screwed. It isn't just the US, sadly. Although the US is at the point where its worse than the majority of the 1st world democracies.

The US has been pretty low on my list of places I might want to visit exactly because of this constant undermining of basic rights and freedoms. Civil forfeiture and the police apparently being able to shoot you for whatever reason they choose, is the nail in the coffin.

I'm of the opinion that neither legislation or a new constitutional amendment would help, at this point. When the majority on the SC endorses this sort of taking, they are the problem.

I'm not sure, but it might be good to remember this next time someone tries to make a political argument regarding the Supreme Court's biases.

> I find it interesting that Kagan, a former prosecutor, sees no problem with this, while Roberts, a former defense attorney, does.

I find it interesting that a judge who is the former lawyer of one of the parties to a case would ordinary recuse herself, but apparently not when that party is the government.

As someone who thought Sotomayor would be awful on civil liberties due to being a prosecutor, it's worth noting that she's been one of the best in that regard (IMO) since joining the court. On the other hand, Kagan went straight from being a government attorney to the Supreme Court, so maybe you could expect her to be more inclined to side with the government in these cases.

> Is this something that can be remedied just with normal legislation, or are we now in need of a new constitutional amendment?

Legislation can certainly curb it, though it can also be repealed and bypassed if it leaves any openings.

An honest question: have you actually read the opinion, or are you just responding to the arguments you imagine them to have made in justifying the stance the headline causes you to imagine them to have taken?

Is there anything in particular in the reasoning of the opinion that you disagree with? I get it that civil forfeiture is very unpopular around these parts (for the record, I'm against it too), but I think we all have a right to expect the discourse on HN to rise above the level of bomb throwing, even if (especially if!) we're on the same side.

That's already the case. The threat of this kind of asset freezing was used at least as far back as the Drexel Burnham Lambert investigation in the 80s.

"The threat of a RICO indictment unnerved many at Drexel. A RICO indictment would have required the firm to put up a performance bond of as much as $1 billion in lieu of having its assets frozen. This provision was put in the law because organized crime had a habit of absconding with the funds of indicted companies, and the writers of RICO wanted to make sure there was something to seize or forfeit in the event of a guilty verdict. Unfortunately, most of Drexel's capital was borrowed money, as is common with most Wall Street firms (in Drexel's case, 96 percent—by far the most of any firm). This debt would have to take second place to this performance bond. Additionally, if the bond ever had to be paid, Drexel's stockholders would have been all but wiped out. Due to this, banks will not extend credit to a firm under a RICO indictment.[5]

By this time, several Drexel executives—including Joseph—concluded that Drexel could not survive a RICO indictment and would have to seek a settlement with Giuliani."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drexel_Burnham_Lambert