SCOTUS Responds - Unanimously!

The following is a guest contributor's comments about this recent ruling regarding asset forfeiture.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
By C.B. in reference to this article.

If you’re lucky like me, you’ve never been directly affected by the outlandish confiscatory practices that had become common practice by some crooked and self-serving police departments. Yet these nightmarish property hijackings by some rouge agencies against lawful citizens who generally lacked the insurmountable financial resources needed to contest them in crap-shoot courts are well known in legal circles. It’s just one more chilling factor undermining our imperiled liberties.

As with the manifold benefits to mankind in the discovery and discretionary use of fire, I sincerely value and respect our valiant law enforcement personnel and originalist judges who are faithful to their oaths of office. At the same time, even if your police agency were fair-minded public servants that were respectful of constitutionally recognized civil liberties, the potential for an ordinary American citizen to be fleeced of their rightful property with little recourse was ever-present and very real.

So, even though I readily concede that the defendant in this case was a low-life scumbag, I am ultimately delighted to see this illegitimate and abusive misuse of asset forfeiture power appropriately reigned-in.

Furthermore, the case only illustrates my contention that ordinary law-abiding citizens who have the most to lose are, too often, the ones most burdened by the burgeoning set of incomprehensible laws foisted upon people of good character by legislators and political elitists who typically live behind gates with well armed security details and who situationally or statutorily exempt themselves.

Please consider the nature of such infringements the next time some blame-shifting media or political elitist pretends that they know better than God and most people ...that guns, rather than known assaultive individuals, are violent and responsible for crime; or that more ineffectual abridgments of our precious life-assuring liberties such as firearm bans and gun-free criminal opportunity zones are a legitimate remedy. While we’re at it, why not also ban fire-extinguishers in boats, or spare tires in cars? In their penchant for fuzzy logic, you probably don’t need these critical life-safety inventions at the moment either. I only use firearms as an example because once the socialists boldly quell free speech and deprive individuals of their legitimate right of self-defense they’ll assuredly be back to ruthlessly snuff-out the remainder of your choices.

But consider history and remember that their purposeful prevarication, utopian fantasies, and shameless appeal for safety doesn’t line-up in the real world of imminent consequences, where coroners vehicles and yellow tape arrive along with counselors whenever the impact is felt [and] where truth inevitably intersects facts. There’s always an ulterior motive. The self-anointed cognoscenti class stands to benefit by aggrandizing an illegitimate share of power or wealth while good people are hurt or die, simply because they’re doing what they do best... smugly lying, shamelessly and incessantly. Eventually, they or the strange affinity they share with the common street or home invasion thugs they resemble will generally be back swinging more bad laws or blunt instruments for another costly visit.

And, when you pull the lever and vote for bad public policy, then it’s really your malignant and assaultive behavior that pointed the threat and squeezed the trigger at some innocent. You simply assigned an agent on your behalf to steal someone’s property, deprive them of an ability to reliably defend themselves, leech off their life energy, or sever and dismantle an innocent newborn’s life... that’s all.