Here’s a story I just saw now. It seems that Obama’s nominee for Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, is a big fan of civil forfeiture. You’ve probably heard of civil forfeiture. It’s when, for example, a teenager gets caught selling drugs in his parent’s basement, and the prosecutor siezes the parents’ house. It’s one of the few things that liberals & conservatives can agree is really fucking scummy, yet it persists despite being flagrantly unconstitutional.
So, is this going to turn into a big deal? Will it torpedo Lynch’s chances of being AG?
I know Liberals think its scummy and maybe some Libertarians oppose it since it involves giving money to the government, but I thought that many conservatives liked it because it fit in with their get tough on criminals philosophy.
I’d think they’d be falling all over themselves to get anyone pushed through, given how much they hate Holder (who has promised to stick around until there’s a replacement).
Libertarians generally hate it with a white-hot passion, not merely becuase it involves “giving money to the government,” but because it so often involves doing so without due process (in many cases, you can be acquitted or even have the charges dropped, and the government still keeps the seized property), and/or on in connection to nonviolent crime.
Lots of liberals support it (possibly because it involves giving money to the government). e.g. Loretta Lynch, and elected Dems all over the country that have joined Pubs in enacting these laws.
I doubt it will be a hindrance to her. A few senators might say something, but that’s probably it.
Civil forfeiture is one of those issues that the major parties haven’t really talked about, so only a tiny percentage of high information voters has much of an opinion beyond their normal views about the rights of people accused of crimes.
Right now the fight is mostly proceeding in the courts, and without much coordination among the liberals and libertarians, which has meant that both GOP and Dem governors and mayors are put on the defensive. The political upshot, I think, is that the major parties might be less likely to adopt the issue because they each have important governors and mayors fighting to defend these laws against liberal and libertarian interest groups.
That means Ms. Lynch isn’t likely to get much flak over this, especially since the people most likely to oppose her–conservatives–are the ones most in favor of civil assert forfeiture.
Unfortuantely I believe the OP is characterizing this right. You nor your kid for that matter need ever be charged with a crime for you assets to be seized.