Follow-up on "holding pedophiles past end of sentence" Supreme Court decision

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

As with many seemingly controversial Supreme Court decisions the case did not turn on the controversial headline topic.

The lower court decision was a determination that Congress lacked the power to enact the provision in question.

In over-ruling that decision the court was doing a fairly vanilla analysis of Congressional power, not making a new determination of the fitness of the law vis-a-vis the bill of rights.

So, as essentially a "state's rights" issue it is not surprising that the two biggest wing-nuts were the dissenters.

My WTF?! post was based on CNN first-reporting that did not correctly characterize the constitutional issue being decided, and did not list who voted how.

Apologies to any Supreme Court justices who were ill treated by my first-blush assumptions.

:hi:

[pnwmom]

1. Makes sense. Thanks for putting this into context. n/t

[TheKentuckian]

2. If a criminal is so dangerous they can never be released then make that the sentence

I don't get how it is acceptable to hold anyone after completion of sentence.

I could see a health (mental and physical) exemption that required the person that has a condition that is a danger to others being hospitalized until they matched established norms but that cannot be a back door expansion of a sentence and the person would have to be released upon resting normal/healthy, expansive sentencing would break with the Constitution's intent.