Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

US Supreme Court Ruling.

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

US Supreme Court Ruling.

Old 20th Feb 2019, 21:38
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: BC Canada
Posts: 418
US Supreme Court Ruling.

Passing with only a small mention in the papers, the US Supreme Court has ruled that states may not impose "unreasonably" large fines. The actual case was a man who had his $40k car seized after selling $4,000 worth of drugs.

For a long time it has been the custom for states to seize possessions "used in the course of crime" yachts, airplanes, houses. Firstly I wonder if they can now be sued for the return of those items. That will be a mess and a half. Second, while I have not read the ruling I wonder if it applies to "proceeds of crime."

While this does not set a precedent for where I live (Canada) I hope the Canadian government and justice system take note as our provincial government has been hugely over zealous in grabbing assets of people not even convicted of crime. Some time ago they seized the house of a woman who brought a maid from a foreign country, charging her with trafficking (not, of course what the statute was intended for,) before she was convicted. She was acquitted and it was not reported whether or not the province returned her property but even if she did get it back the disruption, especially during the court case, must have been terrible.

I know Magna Carta is not all that most people believe but one of its most significant items was "There shall be no bills of attainder." Seems our provincial government forgot that bit.
ChrisVJ is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2019, 02:48
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,176
Is this a subject about the US, as the title suggests or a discussion about life in Canada?.

The rulings of SCOTUS are done against our constitution and have nothing to do with Canada. If there is an argument about the wisdom of SCOTUS we can wait 20 years or so and revisit the new thinking, or just modify our constitution
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2019, 03:53
  #3 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: BC Canada
Posts: 418
It is more a comment on the pernicious trend by governments to seize assets without trial as a method of punishing 'crooks' (who have not been found guilty of anything.) Maybe they will seize your assets or mine next.
ChrisVJ is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2019, 04:01
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,503
Well covered locally as there was a well known case where the government seized a significant amount of property and assets.

My libertarian side applauds SCOTUS on this decision.
West Coast is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2019, 05:11
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,963
Trump covering his ass ets
Hempy is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2019, 11:02
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Darkest Surrey
Posts: 6,012
Originally Posted by Hempy View Post
Trump covering his ass ets
US SC has little to do with POTUS.

POTUS NOMINATES people if there is a vacancy but SC rarely if ever does something just because present incumbent wants it.

Last edited by racedo; 21st Feb 2019 at 13:54. Reason: To keep someone happy
racedo is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2019, 12:47
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,503
Originally Posted by racedo View Post
US SC has little to do with POTUS.

POTUS appoints people if there is a vacancy but SC rarely if ever does something just because present incumbent wants it.
POTUS doesn't "appoint" anyone to the Supreme Court. I see this belief repeated frequently especially by our foreign posters.
West Coast is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2019, 14:24
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: heathrow
Posts: 52
Originally Posted by West Coast View Post
POTUS doesn't "appoint" anyone to the Supreme Court. I see this belief repeated frequently especially by our foreign posters.
The Supreme court themselves have a slightly different opinion.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/institution.aspx

Members of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President subject to the approval of the Senate. To ensure an independent Judiciary and to protect judges from partisan pressures, the Constitution provides that judges serve during “good Behaviour,” which has generally meant life terms. To further assure their independence, the Constitution provides that judges’ salaries may not be diminished while they are in office.
747 jock is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2019, 14:29
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 233
Originally Posted by West Coast View Post
POTUS doesn't "appoint" anyone to the Supreme Court. I see this belief repeated frequently especially by our foreign posters.
No No No. The POTUS picks one, and the Senate approves it. APPROVES IT. It doesn't say anything about being able to "disapprove" so this means the President actually does appoints.

What was scary is that there were people who actually believed this.
FakePilot is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2019, 15:14
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 595
Seeing as how this is JB, I believe Westy was engaging in our popular pastime of nit-picking.

"Selects" "Chooses" "Nominates" "Appoints" "Blesses" Take your choice. The President determines SC replacements.The Senate gets to whine and pontificate. The media obsesses with digging up dirt.
obgraham is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2019, 16:29
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: heathrow
Posts: 52
Originally Posted by obgraham View Post
Seeing as how this is JB, I believe Westy was engaging in our popular pastime of nit-picking.
But if what you post is factually incorrect (unless of course the Supreme court website is wrong) then it's not nit-picking, just factually incorrect.
747 jock is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2019, 16:31
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,503
Originally Posted by FakePilot View Post
No No No. The POTUS picks one, and the Senate approves it. APPROVES IT. It doesn't say anything about being able to "disapprove" so this means the President actually does appoints.

What was scary is that there were people who actually believed this.
Judge Garland sends his love.
West Coast is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2019, 16:45
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,503
Originally Posted by obgraham View Post
Seeing as how this is JB, I believe Westy was engaging in our popular pastime of nit-picking.

"Selects" "Chooses" "Nominates" "Appoints" "Blesses" Take your choice. The President determines SC replacements.The Senate gets to whine and pontificate. The media obsesses with digging up dirt.
Disagree, distinction with difference. To the casual observer one might believe from Racedo's post (since corrected) that there's no additional steps when that's clearly not the truth. Not everyone here is conversant on the pathway to SCOTUS and when an error in the process is noted it should be corrected. This isn't simply a matter of nitpicking Racedo's choice of wording, it corrected a falsehood.

It's now corrected, time to move on

West Coast is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2019, 18:33
  #14 (permalink)  
Gnome de PPRuNe
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 55
Posts: 5,917
Originally Posted by West Coast View Post
Judge Garland sends his love.
Is he related to Judy?
treadigraph is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2019, 19:56
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Darkest Surrey
Posts: 6,012
Originally Posted by West Coast View Post
Disagree, distinction with difference. To the casual observer one might believe from Racedo's post (since corrected) that there's no additional steps when that's clearly not the truth. Not everyone here is conversant on the pathway to SCOTUS and when an error in the process is noted it should be corrected. This isn't simply a matter of nitpicking Racedo's choice of wording, it corrected a falsehood.

It's now corrected, time to move on
I saw it as nit picking and a condescending remark to anybody who isn't from the US.
racedo is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2019, 20:24
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 79
Posts: 1,147
It's now corrected, time to move on
LOL! WC is always anxious to move on when he is standing on risky ground or is just plain wrong, as he was in this instance.
Turbine D is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2019, 21:36
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,503
Originally Posted by Turbine D View Post
LOL! WC is always anxious to move on when he is standing on risky ground or is just plain wrong, as he was in this instance.
Does that mean you think SCOTUS judges are appointed by the president as well?
West Coast is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2019, 21:39
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,503
Originally Posted by racedo View Post
I saw it as nit picking and a condescending remark to anybody who isn't from the US.
Instead be thankful you are now aware that it's not an appointment and that you're potentially no longer (unintentionally I suspect) misleading other readers who may have believed your post to be accurate.
West Coast is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2019, 22:49
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 79
Posts: 1,147
West Coast,
Does that mean you think SCOTUS judges are appointed by the president as well?
I believe what the SCOTUS internet site says:
Members of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President subject to the approval of the Senate. To ensure an independent Judiciary and to protect judges from partisan pressures, the Constitution provides that judges serve during “good Behaviour,” which has generally meant life terms. To further assure their independence, the Constitution provides that judges’ salaries may not be diminished while they are in office.
It is a much better source than an amateur PPRuNe, with too much time on his hands... What is it about the word appointed that you don't understand that SCOTUS does? Time to move on, again?

Last edited by Turbine D; 21st Feb 2019 at 22:51. Reason: added words
Turbine D is offline  
Old 22nd Feb 2019, 00:06
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,503
Originally Posted by Turbine D View Post
West Coast,

I believe what the SCOTUS internet site says:

It is a much better source than an amateur PPRuNe, with too much time on his hands... What is it about the word appointed that you don't understand that SCOTUS does? Time to move on, again?
Article II, section II of the US constitution, in other words, the ultimate source document on the subject.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Only after the Senate approves does the nominee become appointed via a swearing in ceremony. It’s not a singular event as in President says make it so. Please tell me you’re not confused on how it really works. If so, recall Judges Garland, Bork and a number of others who were nominated but never made the big show as the Senate either didn’t do anything or outright rejected them.
West Coast is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.