I zero faith in the system when it becomes consumed by partisan politics, like it has with Trump. 

You had faith in the Colorado Supreme Court to remove Trump from the ballot when they got reversed 9-0 in the U.S. Supreme Court?  Or the system that provided zero accountability for what happened during the Russia hoax?  We have seen a litany of abuses the past 7 or 8 years, many with little or no consequences.   

First off partisan politics has been around longer than Trump has been in politics. Actually, it got going in the 1970s and ramped up in the 2000s. Trump uses partisan politics to further divide this country and to his personal advantage in order to put himself in a position of power. Since losing the 2020 election he has used partisan politics to drum up sympathy and support (read campaign contributions) for himself... and it seems to be working for him. Not so much for this country though.

BTW, did I really have faith in the Colorado Supreme Court to get him off the ballot? If so, it was good faith because they did, until they were told no deal by a heavily stacked in Trump's favor Supreme Court. Poor poor, Trump he has been so abused over the past eight years. It breaks my heart!  

You are literally clueless in every respect. Same with Lurker. I mean COMPLETELY.

Okay then. If we are so ‘clueless’ help us out by posting an official link confirming President Biden is under investigation - by whom and for what. If you cannot do that then guess what? You are the joker around here who is clueless.

BTW what you previously posted was a list of things Chair of the House Oversight Committee, James Comer and the committee were investigating in hopes of impeaching him. At this point, it is dead according to James Comer, and he ought to know. Certainly, better than you do. But hey, maybe The Epoch Times is telling a different story just to keep folks like you happy.

Why 35? Why is that the magical number? I see no point in pushing grams but if everything with your blood and BP is in check what makes the difference? A 45 yr on gear on sitting around over eating and drinking beer every night...yet nobody says anything to the beer drinker or mildly obese middle aged man. I say do what u want and try to stay as healthy as u can

Another shameful decision on the issue by the Supreme Court. The argument about not requiring a separate preliminary hearing is a cop out, since the "timely forfeiture hearing" took almost 2 years for one of the victims.


Supreme Court Rules No Due Process Right to Preliminary Hearings in Civil Asset Forfeiture Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the due process rights of two Alabama women were not violated when they both had to wait over a year for a court hearing to challenge the police seizure of their cars.

In a 6–3 decision, the Court's conservative majority held in the case Culley v. Marshall, Attorney General of Alabama that property owners in civil asset forfeiture proceedings have no due process right to a preliminary court hearing to determine if police had probable cause to seize their property.

"When police seize and then seek civil forfeiture of a car that was used to commit a drug offense, the Constitution requires a timely forfeiture hearing," Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett. "The question here is whether the Constitution also requires a separate preliminary hearing to determine whether the police may retain the car pending the forfeiture hearing. This Court's precedents establish that the answer is no: The Constitution requires a timely forfeiture hearing; the Constitution does not also require a separate preliminary hearing."

Under civil asset forfeiture laws, police can seize property suspected of being connected to criminal activity, even if the owner is never charged or convicted of a crime. Law enforcement groups say it is a vital tool to disrupt drug trafficking and other organized crime.

Those criticisms have been echoed in the past by not just the Supreme Court's liberal justices but also Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, giving forfeiture critics hope that a skeptical majority on the Court would clamp down on civil forfeiture.

However, despite writing in a concurrence that "this case leaves many larger questions unresolved about whether, and to what extent, contemporary civil forfeiture practices can be squared with the Constitution's promise of due process," Gorsuch, joined by Thomas, both agreed with the majority opinion.


https://reason.com/2024/05/09/supreme-court-rules-no-due-process-right-to-preliminary-hearings-in-civil-asset-forfeiture-cases/