Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Intercept)   News: House passes amendment. Whoa: By voice vote. Fark: Restricting Asset Forfeiture   ( theintercept.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, asset forfeiture, United States House of Representatives, Police, Civil asset forfeiture, Rep. Justin Amash, Democratic Party, United States, United States Constitution  
•       •       •

3415 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Sep 2017 at 12:11 AM (18 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



76 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-09-12 10:07:55 PM  
Sweet! Way past time, but good news!
 
2017-09-12 10:16:16 PM  
Well, I'll be damned

/There must be something else utterly evil in that bill someplace
 
2017-09-12 10:17:40 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Well, I'll be damned

/There must be something else utterly evil in that bill someplace


If you read it backwards, it says "Paul is dead"
 
2017-09-12 10:33:28 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Well, I'll be damned

/There must be something else utterly evil in that bill someplace


It's a spending bill. So yeah, it will have all kinds of other shiat in there.
 
2017-09-13 12:15:48 AM  
Gee, I wonder what is scaring a bunch of these elected officials back towards bipartisanship?
Something is odd right now. And Pelosi meeting with Ryan on the DREAM thing... I don't get it.
 
2017-09-13 12:16:44 AM  

derpes_simplex: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Well, I'll be damned

/There must be something else utterly evil in that bill someplace

If you read it backwards, it says "Paul is dead"


Rand Paul?


I could live with that.
 
2017-09-13 12:17:59 AM  
This is one of the only good things the ghost of Antonin Scalia brings to DC.

The others are known only to the Notorious RBG
 
2017-09-13 12:19:18 AM  
Nice to see some decency and common sense prevail. Let's hope it starts a trend.
 
2017-09-13 12:19:36 AM  
Is it going to make it to D2S' desk? Probably not.
 
2017-09-13 12:20:00 AM  
OK, so which politician was about to have their assets seized?
 
2017-09-13 12:20:03 AM  
I do like the human condition and its ability to build.
The vision is often weak, so it takes a fairly pure version of bad to trigger it, but it is incredibly resilient.

I guess the Trump administration is enough of a vision of pure bad to activate the good in these congresspeople.

I hope it is a trend. Congress has a lot of building to do. They need to learn how again.
 
2017-09-13 12:24:25 AM  
Yay!   Something that legitimately matters.  Seriously, hallelujah
 
2017-09-13 12:26:37 AM  

wax_on: Is it going to make it to D2S' desk? Probably not.


Well it is an amendment to H.R. 3354 - whatever that is.
 
2017-09-13 12:26:56 AM  

Fury Pilot: OK, so which politician was about to have their assets seized?


Well, supposedly, Trump's not a politician.
 
2017-09-13 12:27:02 AM  

Fury Pilot: OK, so which politician was about to have their assets seized?


Or which son of? Or son-in-law?
 
2017-09-13 12:28:37 AM  

Markoff_Cheney: Gee, I wonder what is scaring a bunch of these elected officials back towards bipartisanship?
Something is odd right now. And Pelosi meeting with Ryan on the DREAM thing... I don't get it.


Serious question: does anyone know why the American Mirror seems to have a major hard-on for Pelosi? It's so nasty and unrelenting and personal-sounding, harlee is wondering if Pelosi declined some kind of sexual advance from Kyle Olson.
 
2017-09-13 12:33:54 AM  
I would like them to address the security of personal data collected by 3rd parties and the penalties for the failure to properly secure the data. In addition, establishing protections and recourse for those whose data has been exposed.

But asset forfeiture is a good thing too.
 
2017-09-13 12:36:53 AM  
Keep track of who votes against this bill and promise to vote them out of office, whether they are on your team or not. Support primary challengers to those that support civil asset forfeiture by voting for them over the incumbent. This is important to your civil rights.
 
2017-09-13 12:39:48 AM  

OptimisticCynicism: wax_on: Is it going to make it to D2S' desk? Probably not.

Well it is an amendment to H.R. 3354 - whatever that is.


Appropriations bill for Department of the Interior (and related agencies) and the EPA. The summary says it decreases their funding relative to this year.
 
2017-09-13 12:40:00 AM  
Trump was worried that Mueller would seize Trump Tower under civil asset forfeiture law. He can breathe a sigh of relief now.
 
2017-09-13 12:41:44 AM  

Markoff_Cheney: Gee, I wonder what is scaring a bunch of these elected officials back towards bipartisanship?
Something is odd right now. And Pelosi meeting with Ryan on the DREAM thing... I don't get it.


You can't betray people anymore until you get them to trust you again.
 
2017-09-13 12:46:00 AM  
This is very good, but just a drop in the bucket of what needs to happen.  Civil asset forfeiture needs to go away entirely.  It is at its base an inherently unconstitutional practice.  It has no place in American governance.  I mean really, isn't the very concept a violation of the 4th and 14th amendments?
 
2017-09-13 12:46:16 AM  
Putting limits on asset forfeiture? Holy shiat, conservatives acting conservative, and not simply batshiat crazy.  I could get used to that.

Harry_Seldon: Trump was worried that Mueller would seize Trump Tower under civil asset forfeiture law. He can breathe a sigh of relief now.


I almost went there for a microsecond, then realized no one in the house or senate really cares about what Trump wants.
 
2017-09-13 12:46:38 AM  

hawcian: OptimisticCynicism: wax_on: Is it going to make it to D2S' desk? Probably not.

Well it is an amendment to H.R. 3354 - whatever that is.

Appropriations bill for Department of the Interior (and related agencies) and the EPA. The summary says it decreases their funding relative to this year.


Appreciate the response. I don't have time atm to do any research.
 
2017-09-13 12:50:17 AM  

Fury Pilot: OK, so which politician was about to have their assets seized?


img.fark.netView Full Size


img.fark.netView Full Size


img.fark.netView Full Size


img.fark.netView Full Size


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-09-13 12:51:51 AM  
I'm not really surprised.  Civil asset forfeiture has long been a sticking point with liberals and libertarians.  This shait should have ended decades ago.
 
2017-09-13 12:54:32 AM  

Harlee: Markoff_Cheney: Gee, I wonder what is scaring a bunch of these elected officials back towards bipartisanship?
Something is odd right now. And Pelosi meeting with Ryan on the DREAM thing... I don't get it.

Serious question: does anyone know why the American Mirror seems to have a major hard-on for Pelosi? It's so nasty and unrelenting and personal-sounding, harlee is wondering if Pelosi declined some kind of sexual advance from Kyle Olson.


Other than a woman in power who refuses to "know her place"?
 
2017-09-13 12:57:53 AM  

derpes_simplex: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Well, I'll be damned

/There must be something else utterly evil in that bill someplace

If you read it backwards, it says "Paul is dead"


Ryan or Rand?
 
2017-09-13 12:58:07 AM  
Wait.  The House doing something sensible?  I guess miracles do happen.
 
2017-09-13 01:01:44 AM  

This Face Left Blank: Putting limits on asset forfeiture? Holy shiat, conservatives acting conservative, and not simply batshiat crazy.  I could get used to that.

Harry_Seldon: Trump was worried that Mueller would seize Trump Tower under civil asset forfeiture law. He can breathe a sigh of relief now.

I almost went there for a microsecond, then realized no one in the house or senate really cares about what Trump wants.


Conservatism hasn't stood for squat except for narrowly defined Law'n'Order for centuries.  Acting contrary to the interest of Law Enforcement is a radical position now.
 
2017-09-13 01:01:57 AM  
img.fark.netView Full Size


Consume excrement and savor its choking hold upon your throat till your toes curl up, Jeff Sessions.
 
2017-09-13 01:11:18 AM  
We'll, now, just how is Bubba Sesh supposed to keep them Coloureds from having all that money that rightfully should belong to decent white folk?

Congress just don't understand the danger of not allowing the Po-lice to take away people's cash and cars when they get pulled over for driving while black and happen have their weed in 2 separate baggies.

It's a crying shame, it is.
 
2017-09-13 01:14:07 AM  

Fart_Machine: I'm not really surprised.  Civil asset forfeiture has long been a sticking point with liberals and libertarians.  This shait should have ended decades ago.


You mean, like, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."
 
2017-09-13 01:14:41 AM  

Fart_Machine: I'm not really surprised.  Civil asset forfeiture has long been a sticking point with liberals and libertarians.  This shait should have ended decades ago.


Yup. The biggest sticking point in getting Civil Asset Forfeiture reform through the Senate last year was 'lil Jeffy Sessions, there was otherwise pretty broad bipartisan agreement, at least in Committee. That, and it would have played in the media as a democratic victory, and Republicans didn't want that. But Jeff Sessions is out of the Senate, and there's no presidential election driving everything, so here we go. The House has been batting different versions of this around with the understanding that it would get attached to something pretty soon, this is the more modest version that commands the broadest consensus, and it turns out the something they'll attach it to was a random appropriations bill.

It'll pass the Senate, and it'll become law because Trump isn't going to veto an appropriations bill because of an issue that he knows nothing about. This is Jeff Sessions's bugaboo, not his.
 
2017-09-13 01:14:59 AM  
I wish they had passed it by individual vote, so I could know which farkwits voted against it and start making voodoo dolls.

This is one of those things that makes my blood pressure rise just thinking about it. That and when cops shoot Golden Retrievers in no-knock warrants against people facing charges for non-violent crimes.

/yes, I hate it when people get shot, too
//but not as much as dogs
///dogs rule
 
2017-09-13 01:18:09 AM  

MeSoRonery: Fart_Machine: I'm not really surprised.  Civil asset forfeiture has long been a sticking point with liberals and libertarians.  This shait should have ended decades ago.

You mean, like, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."


Rand Paul's bill on this subject is "The Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration Act". Most people working on it refer to it as the Fifth Amendment Restoration Act (or "the CAF bill"), but you gotta have the acronym spell something, of course.
 
2017-09-13 01:25:01 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Well, I'll be damned

/There must be something else utterly evil in that bill someplace


This.
They did something decent and right? Without being beaten with sticks and threatened by fire? There must be something else going on...
 
2017-09-13 01:30:09 AM  
Trump doesn't want to give up his golf courses.
 
2017-09-13 01:30:59 AM  

Percise1: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Well, I'll be damned

/There must be something else utterly evil in that bill someplace

This.
They did something decent and right? Without being beaten with sticks and threatened by fire? There must be something else going on...


I wonder if there migjt just be a bit of silent backlash still going on over the Continuing Resolution. I mean, Trump all but said to the Republicans that he has no intention of ever listening to them about policy and will just take the path of least resistance when confronted with a challenging negotiation.

On the heels of the Nazi vote,, This might just be another not-so-subtle jab at a White House that's starting to be seen as a liability by even the staunchest Republican blowhards.
 
2017-09-13 01:38:00 AM  

Devo: Trump doesn't want to give up his golf courses.


Rich people can afford the legal fees to get their stuff back. Asset seizure affects only the working class.
 
2017-09-13 01:54:44 AM  
It's still got a long way and a lot of people of questionable decision making skills to get past before it becomes a law. We're at the beginning of "I'm Just a Bill" here. Still, it's progress, I'll take it.
 
2017-09-13 02:06:00 AM  
traveling in europe and just opened my eyes to start the day. wtf is happening?  did the hurricanes knock us onto a better timeline?  is uncle joe president? are nazis bad again?
 
2017-09-13 02:16:51 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Well, I'll be damned

/There must be something else utterly evil in that bill someplace


The rest of it.
 
2017-09-13 03:01:58 AM  
Finally some good news out of this abysmal year
 
2017-09-13 03:07:59 AM  

SergeantObvious: I wish they had passed it by individual vote, so I could know which farkwits voted against it and start making voodoo dolls.

This is one of those things that makes my blood pressure rise just thinking about it. That and when cops shoot Golden Retrievers in no-knock warrants against people facing charges for non-violent crimes.

/yes, I hate it when people get shot, too
//but not as much as dogs
///dogs rule


Y'know in general, I care more about people that animals.  Since I am a people that kind of makes sense.  With 'getting shot', though, it's different.  On average, I really care more about dogs getting shot than people, but here's why.  Some people do really stupid things and deserve to get shot.  I care less about them getting shot.  I might not care at all about such people getting shot, except for the fact that often there are people who love or depend on them so them getting shot hurts the innocent too.  I care *more* about people who get shot but didn't do anything stupid to deserve it than dogs who get shot without deserving to be shot.  However, I operate on the assumption that a dog *almost never* does something that deserves their getting shot [and even if they do, it's mostly because the people responsible for them didn't take proper care of them.  Of course, there's still the very rare random cujo that no human intervention can help].  So since almost no dogs deserve to get shot, but a higher percentage of people deserve their being shot, on average I care more about the dogs getting shot.  Here's a picture to illustrate my caring about dogs getting shot vs people getting shot

Don't care at all
                    ^
                    |
                    |
people that deserve it [a small percentage, less than half?]
                    |
                    |
dogs that deserve it [almost none]
                    |
                    |
                    |
                    |
                    |
                    |
                    |
                    |
dogs that didn't deserve it [nearly all]
people that didn't deserve it [a majority, probably]
                   |
                  V
Care a whole lot
 
2017-09-13 03:21:12 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: I would like them to address the security of personal data collected by 3rd parties and the penalties for the failure to properly secure the data. In addition, establishing protections and recourse for those whose data has been exposed.

But asset forfeiture is a good thing too.


Why tort liability for data breaches won't improve cybersecurity
 
2017-09-13 03:53:18 AM  

Fury Pilot: OK, so which politician was about to have their assets seized?


The GOP.
 
2017-09-13 03:53:54 AM  
I can't believe the House did a good thing for the American public. Will it make it through the Senate though?

/ Sessions can suck it.
 
2017-09-13 04:28:59 AM  

Harry_Seldon: Trump was worried that Mueller would seize Trump Tower under civil asset forfeiture law. He can breathe a sigh of relief now.


IDK, his criminal enterprises may be traceable and prosecutable; and I think they were just limiting its application, not saying it can't still be used on proven criminals.
 
2017-09-13 05:43:18 AM  

Markoff_Cheney: Gee, I wonder what is scaring a bunch of these elected officials back towards bipartisanship?
Something is odd right now. And Pelosi meeting with Ryan on the DREAM thing... I don't get it.


Maybe, just maybe, they are coming to understand just how much Americans hate what we are becoming. I don't like being angry every day because we see more examples of our government and societal dysfunction. Maybe they are seeing the battles in the streets between rival groups of protestors and their increasing organization. Maybe they are recognizing that by ignoring the problems that many people face they have imperiled the system that has been so good to them.

I would LOVE it if the biggest thing I had to biatch about was Congressional insider trading instead of wondering if the Speaker of the House is on Russia's indirect payroll or if he's just loyally hyperpartisan.

Maybe the fact that Trump was elected and is so horrible, and that an independent progressive could just waltz in and nearly hijack the Democratic nomination because even primary voters are sick of politics as usual have actually hit home and nudged them to at least pay lip service to bringing the country together.

It could also be that they have cut a deal to impeach when they agree the time is right and they are making a show of unity so that the people feel that Congress can be trusted to work through the long process properly.

Maybe it's a mix of the above.
 
Displayed 50 of 76 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report