[–] oddjob 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

Clarence Thomas dissented

Clarence Thomas is a cuck.

[–] EarlPoncho 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

they only have rights to your money when you have a job, buy anything or own property

[–] sharered 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

is the hook nose thumbnail really needed? lol

[–] RunRabbitRun 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

[–] selpai 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

The horrific part is that there were people who argued against this verdict.

[–] heroinwinsagain 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

isnt this common fucking sense. it takes a fucking retard 7 seconds to figure this out.

[–] ahship101 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I've known this theft by gov't was illegal,since they started the perversion of justice,that is asset forfeiture. :(

[–] Thisismyvoatusername 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I'm not sure this is the correct answer. I'll need to reread these opinions and think about it some more.

My initial reaction was to agree with Alito's concurring opinion. I do think the majority opinion is far too leftist "what do I want the answer to be" type of reasoning. However, Thomas has a really good point that no attempt was made to use the statute specifically put in place for this type of circumstance. Without any inclusion of the Exoneration Act in considering the case, the issues were essentially not ripe (my word, not his, since I am speaking loosely, not technically).

What really should have happened was the people seeking restitution should have gone through the Exoneration Act mechanism for redress. Then, if that had failed, they could have raised the issue of whether either that outcome or the Exoneration Act itself were in violation of their rights.

[–] burns29 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

This just exposes that the Exoneration Act (and most civil asset forfeiture policy) exists to prevent people from exercising their 4th ammendment right. If I make a process too expensive or just more expensive than you expect to regain, I effectively prevent you from regaining money that rightfully belongs to you.

[–] we_kill_creativity 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Makes me wonder why legislators haven't just made a law that makes this explicitly illegal for a state to do.

[–] theysayso 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Doesn't this finding suggest however, that the Exoneration Act need not exist? The burden should be on the State.

[–] Thisismyvoatusername 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Possibly. I do wish they had litigated issues concerning it better.