Hacker News Reader

Comment by montroser | Hacker News Reader

The standard for arrest, probable cause, is far too weak to be any basis for indefinitely seizing property. A precedent ruling on this by the Supreme Court would be welcome, but it's hard to say which way it would go, given the current makeup of the court.

View on HN

Which half of the court would be likely to rule which way?

Does "tough on crime" answer your question?

No, because the tough on crime people are more libertarian as well.

Who do you think is just "tough on crime"?

Ideologically, Justice Thomas obviously is the most opposed to asset forfeiture. Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, and Gorsuch are all opposed to it too. I suppose that leaves Roberts, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson as the tough on crime crowd?

There’s no “half”. While the current court has a conservative majority the rulings only fall sharply along those lines around 10% of the time https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/06/02/supreme-co...

I would expect public votes -- Congress, Supreme Court, etc. -- to frequently cluster around 50%-plus-one. The internal lobbying and horse trading can stop after the winning viewpoint has its majority of votes, so the minority viewpoint voters go on record with their original viewpoint.

With an issue like this? Roll the dice, honestly.

I lose track of whether the conservative members of the court are pro-constitution, pro-defendant or pro-police in criminal justice issues like this.

Over the last decade (realizing the court has changed a lot) they've made some pretty decent pro-rights decisions in criminal cases where people thought they would be pro-police.

Their recent decisions are garbage fires, though.

The simplest way to figure out the current court is to apply a “Republican Party” filter before any judgment is applied. Texas arguing against adhering to treaties? Texas wins. New York trying to give air passengers the right to not sit in a hot-boxed airplane for eight hours? Sorry blue-staters.

The court tends to attempt to narrow the scope of these party-first decisions, but it’s clear that they’re playing for party above country or sanity.

After that, the court is a mush-mash of deeply thoughtless polarized opinions, resulting in the senseless goat rodeo we presently have, but it’s much easier to figure out who will tilt which way after you apply the party filter.

> New York trying to give air passengers the right to not sit in a hot-boxed airplane for eight hours?

Aside but which case was this?

Likely Air Transport Association of America, Inc. v. Cuomo, 520 F.3d 218 (2d Cir. 2008). In this case, New York attempted to enforce a Passenger Bill of Rights law that required airlines to provide adequate food, water, ventilation, and restroom facilities during lengthy tarmac delays. However, the law was struck down by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that federal law preempts state regulations in aviation matters.

This is 16 year old case that didn't file for Supreme Court review so it is strange the parent comment would use it as an example of "The simplest way to figure out the current court...".

Not sure that would matter; the Roberts court has shown it only respects precedent when it suits the personal perspectives of the justices.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com