Okay, who's the other "liberal" Justice to vote for detaining people past their sentence?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

7-2 SCOTUS decision handed down those morning that dangerous persons don't have to be released when their sentence is completed.

Breyer wrote the opinion, so that's one "liberal."

The first 'flash' article doesn't say who voted how.

(I am going to guess that the 2 no votes were Stevens and Ginsberg.)

ON EDIT: And my guess would be flat wrong. It was Thomas and Scalia. So the whole "liberal" block voted for this. I'll read the opinion and see what's up.

CNN: Supreme Court: Sex offenders can be held indefinitely

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/17/supreme-court-says-sex-offenders-can-be-held-indefinitely/

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

1. No . . . .

The two dissenters were Justice Thomas (who wrote a separate dissenting opinion) and Justice Scalia (who did not write separately but who joined Thomas's dissent (except as to one portion of it).

[Mz Pip]

5. Thomas wrote something???

How often does that happen?

The only time I ever recall his having writtne a dissenting opinion what over a cross burning case. It might have been one of the few times I agreed with him.

[harkadog]

18. If you read SC opinions you will find Thomas writes as many as any of the others.

[elehhhhna]

19. lol, his clerks do, anyway

[harkadog]

22. The clerks write the draft opinions for all nine Justices.

What is your point? The right wing used to try and slander Thurgood Marshall saying his clerks wrote his opinions. I think it is racist and offensive.

[Thrill]

2. Thomas dissented.

[msanthrope]

3. The mentally ill who are a danger to society can and should be detained.

The Thomas dissent is a stunning piece of advocacy for judicial activism---essentially, he seeks to restrict the Necessary and Proper clause to hamstring Congress--as if passing laws against crime was somehow NOT the business of Congress.

[sharp_stick]

4. Over the years

I think I've found myself agreeing at least once with every Justice on the Supreme Court, except Clarence Thomas. That asshole is just so far out there on the fuckin' nuts branch that I'm absolutely amazed that anyone in Congress would have voted to allow him a seat on the court.

I almost wish I believed in Hell because I would love to see GHW Bush sent there just for foisting this idiotic man upon us.

[msanthrope]

7. Thomas' dissent is the real outrage here....and you are correct,

If I beleived in Hell I would like to think that GHW Bush would be there, being constantly handed cans of Coke with Thomas' pubes...

[elehhhhna]

20. Scalia & Thomas Hand Down Dissent In Support of Convicted Child Molesters

Now THAT's a headline.

[Mz Pip]

9. I recall a conversation

I had with my son when he was in law school. He took extra Constitutional Law classes and read the opinions of many of the justices. He said that Scalia was interesting because he would come up with some maddening justifications for his opinions, and would intellectually twist some law or precident to back up his opinions.

Thomas didn't even bother with that. If he didn't agree with a case, he didn't bother with finding a precident or intellectual argument to justify his ruling. He just did it. A true activist judge if there ever was one.

[elehhhhna]

21. never confusse mavericky with lazy

[Bitwit1234]

6. The decision said that if a sex offender

was deemed dangerous, then he/she would not be released back into the population. I suppose this meant very sick individuals who could not be cured and would prey on people again. I think they should be housed in a mental institution and NEVER RELEASED AGAIN IF THEY ARE SICK.

[tekisui]

11. I agree with this.

Pedophilia is not something that one can be 'cured' of. I support lifetime monitoring or housing in some form of institution. I am not sure I am comfortable with that institution being prison. Would one have to have a separate hearing? I also worry about the precedent and extension to other crimes.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

13. "deemed"... by who? How?

[jberryhill]

17. By a psychologist, presumably, like any other civil commitment

The ruling was actually about commitment, not incarceration pursuant to conviction, per se.

But that's not a catchy headline, since the mentally ill are committed all of the time.

[seaglass]

27. Well in MA it is determined by a jury, it is a very ugly and unfair process.

I was a juror on a civil commitment last fall. It was not just. Until they fix how this is done I cannot support this ruling.

[dumpdabaggers]

8. Do you have any idea how dangerous these type sex offenders are?

They are going to keep doing it. The worst kinds of sex offenders can not be reformed. They do not even deny they are going to do it again.

[tekisui]

12. I wonder if ther better approach would be longer sentences for

repeat offenders, rather than tacking time on after the fact.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

15. Yes, I do. Do you have any idea how dangerous terrorists and murderers are?

We can play this game all day...

One doesn't oppose torture because terrorists are nice, harmless people.

And one doesn't support substituting administrative decisions for due process of law because pedophiles are dangerous.

If someone should be in jail for X number of years that's what we have courts and trials and such for.

Folks are saying, "They should be incarcerated as mentally ill." Coll... what's the method? Is it the same as any other involuntary psychiatric detention hearing before a judge, or does (as the article says) a determination made by a "prison official."

The argument that child molesters are a problem is no argument at all unless you think that any conceivable counter measure is thereby automatically correct.

I will read the opinion and see what form of due process of law informs these decisions because that is decisive here, not the question of whether pedophiles are potentially dangerous.

Of course they are.

[tekisui]

10. I am going to have to read this opinion in detail.

In cases of repeat child-sex offenders, I don't have a problem with life incarceration or life-time monitoring. However, it does not sit well, at first thought, that one's sentence can be prolonged. I should probably read the decision before commenting further, but I will be looking for how the determination would be made for continued detention.

Would an individual have to be a one-time rapist or a serial rapist? I should hope no statutory rapists would qualify for prolonged detention. It seems to me the better approach would be longer sentences, initially. I also worry about the precedent. Could this be extended to other violent offenders? Repeat drug offenders? We have already seen the precedent set for indefinite internment (without charge) of individuals labeled 'enemy combatants'.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

16. You and me both.

If the prolonged detention is psychiatric, under the 'danger to himself or others' standard, is it handling like all such detentions?

What's the due process?

Etc..

[pnwmom]

14. I wonder why some of the sentences for violent sex offenders and child molesters.

are so short. We could solve the problem with life sentences for repeat violent offenders and child molesters.

[Unvanguard]

23. The decision had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with any civil liberties objections you may have.

NOTHING WHATSOEVER. That is why you saw the vote breakdown you saw. It explicitly did not decide those questions.

[FrenchieCat]

24. That's why folks who think they are SCOTUS law experts

should be humble....and admit that they don't know what they don't know.

[nemo137]

25. It's more complicated than that, apparently.

Via LGM: "The case today, however, did not deal with whether the federal law was consistent with the due process of law guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment, but whether the relevant statute was within the powers of the federal government"

So it may not be that Breyer et al just really love confining people past their sentences.

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2010/05/civil-confinement-and-federalism

[Neron616]

26. I was surprised by this myself

Thomas and Scalia objecting to this red-meat, law and order issue?