
Clarence Thomas seems ready to stop civil asset forfeiture - elberto34
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/6/14830278/civil-forfeiture-supreme-court
======
wwalser
The headline of the article (not the title of this post) is a clear
representation of how bad ad-driven news has gotten.

Civil asset forfeiture is an issue so transparently incompatible with our
society that everyone, no matter what side of the isle they are on, should be
able to support any other person who is against it. You don't have to support
their other ideas, policy objectives, rulings or whatever. Just listen to them
say "civil asset forfeiture is awful" and respond "yup".

Yet the article goes out of it's way to portend (in sometimes subtle ways)
that it's a partisan issue. If politicians, with media backing, twist this
issue into a divisive one I won't even be mad. I'll be impressed. If Democrats
or Republicans start standing up en-mass and proclaiming "police should be
able to just take your shit", because that's the party line, we will all have
truly lost.

~~~
jaredklewis
While not as partisan as something like abortion, it isn't totally unpartisan.

Usage of civil asset forfeiture has substantially increased since the 1980s
and the explicit justification for this has always been the war on drugs.

Democrats, on the whole, are increasing disillusioned with the war on drugs.
Republicans, Sessions being a great example, much less so. Further there is an
increasing "law and order" divide between democrats and republicans.
Democrats, on the whole, are much more willing than Republicans to label
police behavior as abuse.

So, should it be a partisan issue? No. Is it? I'll put it this way: if
congress ever starts working on a civil asset forfeiture reform legislation,
my money is on a largely Republican opposition.

~~~
wwalser
I can imagine that as well. However, my hope is that I only feel this way
because I personally sway slightly left and therefore assign my own
preferences to the left. I'm hopeful that's just my bias showing and that
instead we're all on the same side with this one.

I get that Sessions is for forfeiture, I'm just hoping he's only capable of
holding that opinion so long as no one asks too many questions about it. I
could obviously be wrong and that'd be crappy.

------
payne92
It's absolutely stunning to me that this practice ("civil asset forfeiture"
without an associated conviction) has survived Constitutional review for this
long.

~~~
a3n
Without even a charge being filed.

Cops and state patrollers take classes on how to target people in cars passing
through their states. It's big for cops, and big for consultants.
[https://www.mttuiv.org/files/AssForfDFoulkBIO.pdf](https://www.mttuiv.org/files/AssForfDFoulkBIO.pdf)

~~~
metaphorm
> Without even a charge being filed.

that's exactly why it has survived without review for this long. the courts
can't just order an investigation the way, for example, Congress can. the
judicial system requires either a criminal complaint (filed by the states'
attorney) or a civil suit (filed by the injured party) in order to take up a
case and examine the relevant law.

this won't go anywhere until a victim of civil asset forfeiture sues the
police department. that is EXTREMELY hard to get away with. Police have the
"thin blue line" mentality and will go to extraordinary measures to protect
their own tribe.

------
droopybuns
The tone of this article is so strange. Seems like the author is almost
surprised that a conservative would be opposed to civil asset forfeiture.

This position would be almost foundational to anyone who leans libertarian or
conservative. You don't take people's stuff without justification.

~~~
mikeyouse
You would think that's the case, but the Republican Party in the US is
allegedly the conservative one and has been the one pushing for more CAF:

[https://www.google.com/amp/s/bc.marfeel.com/amp/www.national...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/bc.marfeel.com/amp/www.nationalreview.com/article/443299/civil-
forfeiture-property-seizure-no-judicial-process-jeff-sesions-justice-
department)

~~~
tbihl
It is sort of funny that 'conservative' and 'liberal' are commonly meant as
opposites when talking about US politics. But isn't conservatism pointing back
to liberalism if that's the founding principle of the country?

~~~
Arizhel
Definitions change over time.

------
mnm1
It's completely absurd. What kind of "justice" system allows blatant stealing
and abuse with no repercussions whatsoever? What kind of "justice" system
criminalizes _de facto_ not de jur the carrying of cash? What kind of
"justice" system incentivizes lying, framing, and not solving crimes that
aren't tied to large sums of money, like murder, rape, and assault, by police?

