# Is Obama's AG pick about to unravel?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-ag-pick-about-to-unravel/705199>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [November 20, 2014, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-ag-pick-about-to-unravel/705199 "2014-11-20T21:16:41Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 12\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Diceman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Diceman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diceman)\
**Post date:** [November 20, 2014, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-ag-pick-about-to-unravel/705199/1 "2014-11-20T21:16:41Z")

</div>

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.](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/20/civil-forfeiture-likely-to-be-hot-issue-at-lynch-confirmation-hearing-experts/?intcmp=latestnews) 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?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\
**Post date:** [November 20, 2014, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-ag-pick-about-to-unravel/705199/2 "2014-11-20T22:05:25Z")

</div>

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.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\
**Post date:** [November 20, 2014, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-ag-pick-about-to-unravel/705199/3 "2014-11-20T22:22:22Z")

</div>

I agree. If anything it makes her more attractive to Republican lawmakers, not less.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\
**Post date:** [November 20, 2014, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-ag-pick-about-to-unravel/705199/4 "2014-11-20T22:37:15Z")

</div>

> [@Diceman](#):
>
> It’s one of the few things that liberals & conservatives can agree is really fucking scummy . . .

But, is anyone in Congress vocally against it?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Katriona](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/katriona/32/113_2.png) [@Katriona](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Katriona)\
**Post date:** [November 20, 2014, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-ag-pick-about-to-unravel/705199/5 "2014-11-20T22:53:01Z")

</div>

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).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\
**Post date:** [November 20, 2014, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-ag-pick-about-to-unravel/705199/6 "2014-11-20T23:06:47Z")

</div>

If it’s flagrantly unconstitutional why does the Supreme Court say it’s allowed?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Reyemile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@Reyemile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reyemile)\
**Post date:** [November 20, 2014, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-ag-pick-about-to-unravel/705199/7 "2014-11-20T23:51:24Z")

</div>

> [@TriPolar](#):
>
> If it’s flagrantly unconstitutional why does the Supreme Court say it’s allowed?

Because constitutional protections only apply to people, not to houses.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\
**Post date:** [November 24, 2014, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-ag-pick-about-to-unravel/705199/8 "2014-11-24T13:20:57Z")

</div>

> [@Reyemile](#):
>
> Because constitutional protections only apply to people, not to houses.

I don’t follow. If my house is seized based on the crimes of my child, then it’s my rights that were not protected, not any “rights” of my house.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\
**Post date:** [November 24, 2014, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-ag-pick-about-to-unravel/705199/9 "2014-11-24T13:32:31Z")

</div>

> [@TriPolar](#):
>
> If it’s flagrantly unconstitutional why does the Supreme Court say it’s allowed?

Because the court is right wing?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\
**Post date:** [November 24, 2014, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-ag-pick-about-to-unravel/705199/10 "2014-11-24T14:00:56Z")

</div>

> [@Buck\_Godot](#):
>
> I know Liberals think its scummy and maybe some Libertarians oppose it since it involves giving money to the government …

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.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\
**Post date:** [November 24, 2014, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-ag-pick-about-to-unravel/705199/11 "2014-11-24T15:55:40Z")

</div>

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.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Stuffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f17d59/32.png) [@Stuffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stuffy)\
**Post date:** [November 24, 2014, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-ag-pick-about-to-unravel/705199/12 "2014-11-24T16:01:34Z")

</div>

> [@BobLibDem](#):
>
> I don’t follow. If my house is seized based on the crimes of my child, then it’s my rights that were not protected, not any “rights” of my house.

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.

Cites…

[Righty](http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/03/civil-asset-forfeiture-7-things-you-should-know), [Lefty](https://www.aclu.org/criminal-law-reform/civil-asset-forfeiture)
