It's about being used in the commission of a crime, not that the object committed the crime itself

If that's the case, then what's the point in seizing it? The crime has already been committed, the pile of money being taken doesn't change that one bit.

If I use a payphone to order a hit, is it reasonable for the government to come rip it out of the ground? What if I use a freeway to smuggle drugs? Now the road must be torn out?

Money is fungible and has all sorts of uses. Any particular pile of cash is no more or less likely to be intrinsically criminal in nature. Just like phones and freeways.

The point is to make the crime unprofitable so people will not want to do it. This is not a crazy policy assuming the crime actually happened. The ridiculous part about civil asset forfeiture is that no one has to prove a crime even occured. The onus is on the pile of money or whatever to prove its innocence.

If the object didn't commit the crime, then how can you bring a court case against it?

That's a great question. Unfortunately I don't have the answer but I believe it has something to do with civil v. criminal cases. I just know that's the line of thinking that these top legal minds are using to justify this bs

Yeah no guilty mind.