I believe, unfortunately, that principle of the property not having due process rights was upheld by the Supremes (I’m looking at Scalia in my mind) but I admit I could be wrong or tying in memory of some other aspect of level of evidence required.
Clearly, if a person cannot be deprived of life, liberty or PROPERTY without due process, that should mean a conviction—how can you separate out the possessions as if you don’t need a conviction. You can’t compartmentalize those things and the justification employed is highly cynical and reveals the level of criminal intent in many of the so-called public servants.
Evidence and justice be damned. They’re highwaymen with badges. Just great.
You said — Evidence and justice be damned. They’re highwaymen with badges. Just great.
—
It is crazy... for sure. When people hear about it and realize that property can be arrested but the person let go, they can’t believe it. It doesn’t make any sense.
Rulings like that are why we don’t need any more “conservative” justices any more than we need more “liberals”, which is to say, about as much as we need a sharp stick in the eye. What we actually need are libertarians who view their role as protecting individuals from the government and not the other way around.