Thursday, January 14, 2010

Judicial Tyranny – An Example Part II

To be fair, in Alvarez v. Smith the Supremes did in fact address the “capable of repetition” while “evading review” issue holding that:
We can find no special circumstance here that might warrant our continuing to hear the case. . . . Yet here, unlike those cases, nothing suggests that the individual plaintiffs will likely again prove subject to the State’s seizure procedures. See Los Angeles v. Lyons , 461 U. S. 95, 109(1983) (“[T]he capable-of-repetition doctrine applies only in exceptional situations, and generally only where the named plaintiff can make a reasonable showing that he will again be subjected to the alleged illegality”) . . . And in any event, since those who are directly affected by the forfeiture practices might bring damages actions, the practices do not “evade review.” See Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div. v. Craft, 436 U. S. 1, 8–9 (1978) (damages claim saves case from mootness). Consequently, the case is moot.

But of course this is simple sophistry. Ms. Roe in Roe v. Wade wasn't alleging that she was likely to get pregnant anytime soon. Indeed, the Supremes there concluded rather randily that: "Pregnancy often comes more than once to the same woman, and in the general population, if man is to survive, it will always be with us. Pregnancy provides a classic justification for a conclusion of nonmootness. It truly could be "capable of repetition, yet evading review." How is that different from the massive number of car seizures that are going on nationwide?

Moreover consider this: The state can now seize you asset for three (3) years without a hearing and, when you finally push the case after considerable time and money to the Supreme Court, simply say: "Oops, here is your property. Case over." And it is without the inconvenience of any law being made to curb this grotesque government abuse.

This is not a "justice system". It is
not even "just a system". It is a protection racket.


Post a Comment

Play nice!