Fingon Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/holder-ends-seized-asset-sharing-process-that-split-billions-with-local-state-police/2015/01/16/0e7ca058-99d4-11e4-bcfb-059ec7a93ddc_story.html Federal law can no longer be used to steal money from motorists without proving that a crime has been committed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 Good for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 Huh... It feels odd supporting this executive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 This is absolutely the right thing to do, and long overdue. However, I kind of wonder if the reason why it’s happening now has more to do with the Obama Administration’s current war with state and local police, something that the Post article touches on obliquely. Kind of like the flipside to the NYPD’s starving the city of revenue by refusing to issue tickets. . . . Much background here. Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 This is absolutely the right thing to do, and long overdue. However, I kind of wonder if the reason why its happening now has more to do with the Obama Administrations current war with state and local police, something that the Post article touches on obliquely. Kind of like the flipside to the NYPDs starving the city of revenue by refusing to issue tickets. . . . Much background here. Link You have to wonder if this is the reason? Of course it's the reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 Whatever the reason, it's the right thing to do. It's good to see something come out of this administration that I support for a change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 Blind squirrel and a nut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 Blind squirrel and a nut But it was a pretty big goddamn nut. Civil Asset Forfeiture is some real central African/Latin American banana republic ****. "Hey, you're driving a nice car. I'm taking it unless you can prove you're not a drug dealer." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 But it was a pretty big goddamn nut. Civil Asset Forfeiture is some real central African/Latin American banana republic ****. "Hey, you're driving a nice car. I'm taking it unless you can prove you're not a drug dealer." Agreed. As a libertarian, to me that is one of the most egregious assaults on liberty and the Constitution in our legal system. I doubt the administration's rationale lines up with mine but its a big move in the right direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Agreed. As a libertarian, to me that is one of the most egregious assaults on liberty and the Constitution in our legal system. I doubt the administration's rationale lines up with mine but its a big move in the right direction. I couldn't have said it better myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 RADLEY BALKO: More fallout from Eric Holder’s changes to civil asset forfeiture law. “There’s also a lesson here about how difficult it can be to undo bad laws. These forfeiture laws were mostly passed at the height of 1980s drug-war panic, usually with little debate and by overwhelming majorities. Although most people are aghast when they hear how civil forfeiture work in practice, it has taken decades of persistent court challenges from groups like IJ and the ACLU, activism from advocacy groups, investigative reporting from media organizations and victims coming forward with their stories to get even modest reforms. I think Holder’s new policy is important, but it does contain some potentially large loopholes, and it could be undone by the next attorney general or the next administration.” . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 RADLEY BALKO: More fallout from Eric Holder’s changes to civil asset forfeiture law. “There’s also a lesson here about how difficult it can be to undo bad laws. These forfeiture laws were mostly passed at the height of 1980s drug-war panic, usually with little debate and by overwhelming majorities. Although most people are aghast when they hear how civil forfeiture work in practice, it has taken decades of persistent court challenges from groups like IJ and the ACLU, activism from advocacy groups, investigative reporting from media organizations and victims coming forward with their stories to get even modest reforms. I think Holder’s new policy is important, but it does contain some potentially large loopholes, and it could be undone by the next attorney general or the next administration.” I'm actually not sure the Executive has the Constitutional authority to do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 I'm actually not sure the Executive has the Constitutional authority to do this. The authority was established under the numerous press releases and conferences Obama held to alter the ACA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 The authority was established under the numerous press releases and conferences Obama held to alter the ACA. My point exactly. On those grounds, I reverse my position. The President is not a King. As bad as the law is, it must remain the law, enforced, until changed by the legislature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 My point exactly. On those grounds, I reverse my position. The President is not a King. As bad as the law is, it must remain the law, enforced, until changed by the legislature. No, no, no. According to the OP Holder "enacted" civil forfeiture reform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts