Menu
UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting
Football
2023 Notre Dame Football Schedule
2023 Notre Dame Roster
2022 Notre Dame Coaching Staff
Injury News & Updates
Notre Dame Football Depth Charts
Notre Dame Point Spreads & Betting Odds
Notre Dame Transfers
NFL Fighting Irish
Game Archive
Player Archive
Past Seasons & Results
Recruiting
Commits
News & Rumors
Class of 2018 Commit List
Class of 2019 Commit List
Class of 2020 Commit List
Class of 2021 Commit List
Archives
History
Notre Dame Bowl History
Notre Dame NFL Draft History
Notre Dame Football ESPN GameDay History
Notre Dame Heisman Trophy Winners
Notre Dame Football National Championships
Notre Dame Football Rivalries
Notre Dame Stadium
Touchdown Jesus
Basketball
Forums
Chat Room
Football Forum
Open Forum
Basketball Board
Ticket Exchange
Videos
Notre Dame Basketball Highlights
Notre Dame Football Highlights
Notre Dame Football Recruiting Highlights
Notre Dame Player Highlights
Hype Videos
Latest News
Gear
About
Advertise With Us
Contact Us
Our RSS Feeds
Community Rules
Privacy Policy
RSS
YouTube
Twitter
Facebook
Home
>
Forums
>
The Open Forum
Login
|
Register
Username
Password
Remember me
Sign in
Republicans should have allowed Obama his SC justices - this issue would have been fixed
Author:
jimbasil
(50867 Posts - Joined: Nov 15, 2007)
Posted at 1:57 pm on Feb 3, 2019
View All
because we know those Activist Liberal judges would have put a stop to these forfeiture laws.
Jack, he is a banker
and Jane, she is a clerk
Replies to: "Republicans should have allowed Obama his SC justices - this issue would have been fixed"
Don't drive while in possession of cash.
-
NedoftheHill
- 12:07pm 2/3/19
(14)
[View All]
Republicans should have allowed Obama his SC justices - this issue would have been fixed
-
jimbasil
- 1:57pm 2/3/19
Total nonsense.
[NT]
-
NedoftheHill
- 9:53pm 2/3/19
Let's revisit this post after this June's decision, Ned.
[NT]
-
BaronVonZemo
- 12:05am 2/4/19
We will get to see soon how much smoke you are blowing. it's headed to the SCOTUS this session.
[NT]
[
LINK
]
-
BaronVonZemo
- 3:38pm 2/3/19
There are hundreds of examples, no trial, not even guilty, bye bye moola.
[NT]
-
Rooster
- 12:59pm 2/3/19
There is an unreasonable fines/forfeiture case before SCOTUS this term. Should be interesting.
-
Frank L
- 12:09pm 2/3/19
If there is justice, SCOTUS will once and for all declare civil forfeiture unconstitutional.
-
NedoftheHill
- 12:28pm 2/3/19
Well Roberts is now the fifth, so expect some incremental improvement, but not a broad pronouncement
[NT]
-
Frank L
- 12:45pm 2/3/19
This issue is not really partisan, though. It's libertarian vs. statist, not right vs. left.
-
NedoftheHill
- 1:07pm 2/3/19
Agree, but you are also talking judicial restraint versus activism. Roberts likes to decide
-
Frank L
- 1:19pm 2/3/19
Judicial restraint vs. activism. OK. How does "deciding narrowly" figure into that?
-
NedoftheHill
- 9:50pm 2/3/19
As usual you overstate things. First of all it’s an excessive fines claim under the 8th Amendment.
-
Frank L
- 10:12pm 2/3/19
Incorrect. No fine is levied and collected. All cash is taken regardless of amount. You are reaching
-
NedoftheHill
- 11:15pm 2/3/19
I don’t think it’s okay. I am predicting what the Court may do.
-
Frank L
- 7:54am 2/4/19