As infrequently as he speaks either in public or in Supreme Court proceedings it has been posited that there’s a Weekend at Bernie’s whiff around Thomas.
But in the even-a-stopped-clock-is-right-twice-a-day-which-is-one-time-more-than-Clarence-Thomas-per-decade department: Thomas has signalled that he might not be okay with the out of control civil forfeiture schemes that law enforcement has been using to fill their coffers at the expense of anybody who looks crosseyed at them.
As Thomas explained, abuses do not affect all people equally.
“These forfeiture operations frequently target the poor and other groups least able to defend their interests in forfeiture proceedings,” Thomas wrote. “Perversely, these same groups are often the most burdened by forfeiture. They are more likely to use cash than alternative forms of payment, like credit cards, which may be less susceptible to forfeiture. And they are more likely to suffer in their daily lives while they litigate for the return of a critical item of property, such as a car or a home.”
But the deeper problem was his incredibly shallow and uninformed discourse with the Sheriffs on asset forfeiture itself. He didn’t know what it was. Had never heard about it or the problems with it. So in the telling by the law enforcement personnel in the room, whom you can infer certain things merely by their presence in the room, civil asset forfeiture is a great tool in the law enforcement arsenal to stop drug dealers. Period. End of story. Childishly, he accepted that version of it and went on to wonder why anybody would be against it? Must be crazy people.