So... how long is this going to last? The article says Holder's leaving his office. When he leaves, what stops the next person from simply reinstating this policy?
From the OP here:
Holder’s action comes as members of both parties in Congress are working together to craft legislation to overhaul civil asset forfeiture. Last Friday, Sens. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) and Mike Lee (R-Utah), along with Reps. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) and John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), signed a letter calling on Holder to end Equitable Sharing.
Grassley praised Holder’s decision on Friday.
“We’re going to have a fairer justice system because of it,” Grassley said. “The rule of law ought to protect innocent people and civil asset forfeiture hurt a lot of people.”
He said he planned to continue pressing for legislative reforms.
“I commend the department for this step and look forward to working with them on comprehensive forfeiture reform that protects Americans’ property rights,” Sensenbrenner said. “Equitable sharing has become a tool too often used to bypass state law. Forfeitures should be targeted and must have appropriate procedural protections.”
You mean how to keep politicians from stealing from their constituents? I have been asking statists for an answer to that question for a long time. Don't hold your breath. It's a flawed system and you just found the core issue that has no solution inside statism. If anyone disagrees with this statement, instead of down-voting please kindly point to an existing example of a State that has solved the problem of corrupt politicians.
Now that you found the core problem of statism, you owe yourself some reading. It's a fun journey. Good luck.
[0] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%208&...
Edit: Of course not: it's a 'publish everything' model, so people can real time audit government behaviors. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_transparency#Radical_Po... and http://www.davidbrin.com/radicaltransparency.html for some description.
edit: re: edit:
The point is that the call for transparency as a solution presupposes the whole "consent of the governed" idea, which is laughable. Consider accident of birth and majority tyranny.