Due process superfluous in the 14th, says Thomas

The issue before the U.S. Supreme Court in Timbs v. Indiana, therefore, was whether or not the Excessive Fines Clause should bind the states just as it binds the federal government. Since the late 19th century, the Supreme Court has been applying—or incorporating—the various provisions contained in the Bill of Rights against the states via the 14th Amendment, which says, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The issue in Timbs, in other words, boiled down to this: if the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment applies against the states (it does), then the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment deserves the same treatment.The Supreme Court agreed with that assessment and ruled unanimously in favor of Tyson Timbs, holding that the Excessive Fines Clause does indeed apply against the states.But the Court was not unanimous in its reasoning. The majority opinion, written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh, held that the Excessive Fines Clause is "incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."Writing separately, Justice Clarence Thomas explained that while he agreed that the ban on excessive fines should be applied against the states, he "cannot agree," as a matter of originalism, "with the route the Court takes to reach this conclusion. Instead of reading the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause to encompass a substantive right that has nothing to do with 'process," Thomas wrote, "I would hold that the right to be free from excessive fines is one of the 'privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States' protected by the Fourteenth Amendment."

By the way, Sotomayor agreed with Thomas, or implied she did, on the firemen case of Due Process. She was Appealate then,  was over ruled

This has a long history, a legal stream of thought that the Due Process is a duplicate and unneeded addition. If neither state nor federal violates the fundamentals, then fine.

Note above, that this applies to free speech. A state law cannot prohibit an elected mayor of San Diego from exercising the right. Nor can an unelected suppress the right as part of a labor contract. Something is pointing to a battle here. If Due Process is the election, then the mayor is screwed as are a bunch of other politicians, like Gavin. But basic right over rules, then the mayor wins.

The Cal State Supremes will state that a labor review board is sufficient review for the mayor, and they over ruled. So, the state argues, Due Process is met, 14th does not apply is met.  I see a tricky legal battle looming.

Consider the IRS

They have an internal tax court.  It is convenient, but not necessary, the prohibition against unreasonable seizures is still the basic protection.  It should not matter if the IRS court were a special branch of regular federal court. But it is not Due Process, is the fundamental listing of basic rights in the 14th.

Then why was Due Process written in?

I mean, do it yourself, really. We cannot have everything tied up in Federal court and a broad requirement fits the bill.  In this case, the Due Process went through review; this was strictly argued twice in courts, and based on law.  But in fact, the process made mis-judgments, not a Due Process problem, they systematically failed to protect a right.

Muddle Ground:

I am calling Due Process an admonition that states must keep impartial judiciary, that basic rights are adjudicated properly. To take a 14th amendment case is to take both definitions at the same time, but it is the state that has first crack at the problem, and that is the originalist meaning. The IRS can run its own courts of review, at the discretion of traditional federal judiciary.