He sold drugs, and the police seized his car. Does the Constitution provide protection?

[mahatmakanejeeves]

SCOTUSblog, Wednesday, November 28, 2018, round-up

Edith Roberts Editor

Posted Wed, November 28th, 2018 7:06 am

Wednesday round-up

Today the justices will hear oral argument in Timbs v. Indiana, in which they will consider whether the Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause applies to the states. Amy Howe previewed the case for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court. Julia Hollreiser and Benjamin Rodd have a preview at Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. At The Economist’s Espresso blog, Steven Mazie writes that a “rare left-right coalition of anti-poverty activists, Christian conservatives and libertarians supports Mr Timbs against cities and states that grab upwards of $250m a year in questionable forfeits.”
....

Recommended Citation: Edith Roberts, Wednesday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Nov. 28, 2018, 7:06 AM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/11/wednesday-round-up-450/

On the #scotus docket this morning: He sold drugs and the police seized his car. Does the Constitution provide protection?

Link to tweet

[mahatmakanejeeves]

1. Gorsuch fans are going to enjoy today's SCOTUS arguments over civil asset forfeiture.

Gorsuch and Sotomayor -- the new bromance?

WhatCouldGoWrongHat Retweeted

Gorsuch fans are going to enjoy today’s SCOTUS arguments over civil asset forfeiture. When the Indiana Solicitor General said the Excessive Fines Clause doesn’t apply to the states, Gorsuch looked incredulous and said: “Come on, General. Really?!”

Link to tweet

Gorsuch then told the Indiana SG that he was going to lose, and if he kept arguing the merits, he’d lose even worse. Then he and Sotomayor teamed up to say he was defending a “star chamber.”

Link to tweet

[marble falls]

2. Gorsuch and Sotomayor -- the new bromance? ...

You know something about Sotomayor no-one else does???

[mahatmakanejeeves]

3. Gorsuch, joined by Sotomayor(!), writes that SCOTUS should've taken a Confrontation Clause case

Gorsuch, joined by Sotomayor(!), writes that SCOTUS should've taken a Confrontation Clause case

[marble falls]

4. That is a non responsive answer, Senator ....

I direct your attention to the chart on the easel,

"Bromance
A bromance is a close but non-sexual relationship between two or more men. It is an exceptionally tight affectional, homosocial male bonding relationship exceeding that of usual friendship, and is distinguished by a particularly high level of emotional intimacy.More at Wikipedia " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bromance

And I ask again, do you know something about Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor we do not know about?

[mahatmakanejeeves]

5. Oh, I see.

Yeah, I know, they're supposed to be bros. Is there a term for a different-sex friendship that is the equivalent of a bromance?

Bromances form a whole genre of movies, but how about a man and a woman who are unlikely, offbeat pals?

Harold and Maude?



Yeah, that's it. Neil Gorsuch and Sonia Sotomayor are the Harold and Maude of the Supreme Court.

[gay texan]

6. Question

I might have misread the article, did he sell the drugs out of the vehicle, or was he caught selling drugs and they just hauled off and seized the vehicle?

[mahatmakanejeeves]

7. Update from hearing: Sounded as if it might be 9-0 that the Constitution's clause does indeed apply

Last edited Thu Nov 29, 2018, 01:34 PM - Edit history (1)

Update from hearing: Sounded as if it might be 9-0 that the Constitution's excessive fines clause does indeed apply to state and local governments.

Link to tweet

-- and--

Justice Gorsuch at today's oral argument in Timbs v. Indiana: Are we still litigating the incorporation of the Bill of Rights in 2018? Really? Justices seem ready to rule that excessive fines clause applies to the states, although they may not say much more than that.

Link to tweet