Divided Supreme Court rules no quick hearing required when police seize property

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”<p>The text of the 6th amendment above for reference of what was trampled today.

Law enforcement is handled so terribly in the United States. In most of the country, police run amok, barely accountable to anyone and appearing to operate without any sense of civic duty. In other parts of the country, we just legalize crime to deal with it. A better approach is sorely needed.

Nobody read the Gorsuch&#x2F;Thomas opinion. There&#x27;s plenty of leeway to challenge the overall constitutionality of asset forfeiture itself, rather than the minutiae of prompt and timely challenges to police seizure.

Is a 6 out of 9 really a divided ruling?

The United States federal government is bought and paid for. This withering of Constitutional rights basically started with Wickard v Filburn.<p>At this point, I do not recognize the legitimacy of the US government. They enjoy a monopoly on violence, yet they disrespect the bounds placed upon them and find wiggle room to shake them completely off.<p>Some might say this is cold, but I kind of wish COVID had taken out a lot of the people actually responsible for the current state of this mess. The only way to fix things at this point would be to tear it all down and start from scratch, and the only way to do that is to find a way to remove all of the people from power who enable it and who further erode the rights of individuals. COVID taking them all out would have been a very convenient way for that to happen without someone being branded a terrorist.

I’m angry about this but it does seem to me like this court will actually reject civil asset forfeiture in general based on what gorsuch said after about it. These hearings are more of a procedural thing after assets have been seized.