SCOTUS upholds retro part of sex offender law

[SunsetBengal]

This can only be a good thing for all Americans, no matter your party affiliation.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-supreme-court-upholds-retroactive-part-of-sex-offender-law/ar-AADaE0F?ocid=spartandhp

[6andcounting]

What exactly is the law? It doesn't say in the article and doesn't link to anything with more info.

[fredtoast]

(06-20-2019, 01:52 PM)6andcounting Wrote: What exactly is the law? It doesn't say in the article and doesn't link to anything with more info.

This is a very technical ruling.

The US Attorney General made the federal sex offender registry requirements apply retro-actively to people who were convicted before the law required them to register in any state where they live.

Defendant argued that the Attorney General could not make this decision because it is up to Congress to pass laws.  But in this Court ruled that the law had already been passed by Congress and the AG was just using his authority to determine how it would be enforced when he made it apply retroactively.

[6andcounting]

(06-20-2019, 02:03 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This is a very technical ruling.

The US Attorney General made the federal sex offender registry requirements apply retro-actively to people who were convicted before the law required them to register in any state where they live.

Defendant argued that the Attorney General could not make this decision because it is up to Congress to pass laws.  But in this Court ruled that the law had already been passed by Congress and the AG was just using his authority to determine how it would be enforced when he made it apply retroactively.

From the technical standpoint of your explanation of the ruling, it makes sense to me.


Less on the ruling and more on the law itself....This guy was convicted in 2005 to 7 years in jail and the law was passed in 2006 so I can deduce he was still incarcerated when the law was passed. I can see him having register when he gets out. If someone's punishment was long over by 2006 and they didn't register I think they my have more of a fair point.  Retroactively adding punishment after your no longer in the court system and served your punishment would be unfair. I know we view offenders as people who can never be cured so no sympathy from me, but I can see the point.

[*bfine32*]

It was also a good day for Religious Freedoms:

https://news.yahoo.com/scotus-rules-forty-foot-peace-152053425.html;_ylt=A0geKejE2gtdrZoAxBBXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEycnE0ZmU4BGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDQjY4MjFfMQRzZWMDc2M-

Quote:The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a 40-foot “peace cross” commemorating the men from a suburban Maryland town who died in World War I can remain on state property.

Writing for the 7–2 majority, Justice Samuel Alito held that the cross did not violate the Constitution’s establishment clause, as was alleged by the plaintiffs, a group of humanists who argued the war monument represented a state endorsement of Christianity.

[fredtoast]

(06-20-2019, 02:23 PM)6andcounting Wrote: From the technical standpoint of your explanation of the ruling, it makes sense to me.


Less on the ruling and more on the law itself....This guy was convicted in 2005 to 7 years in jail and the law was passed in 2006 so I can deduce he was still incarcerated when the law was passed. I can see him having register when he gets out. If someone's punishment was long over by 2006 and they didn't register I think they my have more of a fair point.  Retroactively adding punishment after your no longer in the court system and served your punishment would be unfair. I know we view offenders as people who can never be cured so no sympathy from me, but I can see the point.

I am not sure if I like the decision or not.  It is expanding the powers of non-elected officials.  People may support it in the area of enforcing laws against sex offenders but oppose it in other situations.

[*Nately120*]

Yet another sad day for the guys caught by Chris Hansen.

[6andcounting]

(06-20-2019, 05:54 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am not sure if I like the decision or not.  It is expanding the powers of non-elected officials.  People may support it in the area of enforcing laws against sex offenders but oppose it in other situations.

I'm not in favor of prosecutors extending their power beyond what the law grants them, but that's the grey area. I'm okay with the logic of Congress passes a law and the AG enforces it and the court ruled that's what happened in this case.

[SunsetBengal]

(06-20-2019, 05:54 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am not sure if I like the decision or not.  It is expanding the powers of non-elected officials.  People may support it in the area of enforcing laws against sex offenders but oppose it in other situations.

Are you sure it's talking about an expansion of powers?  I read it as they were upholding an Attorney General's interpretation of a law.

[Benton]

(06-20-2019, 05:54 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am not sure if I like the decision or not.  It is expanding the powers of non-elected officials.  People may support it in the area of enforcing laws against sex offenders but oppose it in other situations.

Agreed in the line of thinking that it may open the door. On the other hand, the sex offender registry is one of those areas where I don't mind a 'better safe than sorry' zone.

[fredtoast]

(06-20-2019, 06:43 PM)6andcounting Wrote: I'm not in favor of prosecutors extending their power beyond what the law grants them, but that's the grey area. I'm okay with the logic of Congress passes a law and the AG enforces it and the court ruled that's what happened in this case.

(06-20-2019, 07:02 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Are you sure it's talking about an expansion of powers?  I read it as they were upholding an Attorney General's interpretation of a law.

These are the "grey areas" that the SCOUTUS has to deal with.

Lawyers have a saying the "bad facts can make bad law".  Because the facts in this case dealt with sex offenders everyone seems to be on the side of the AG, but next time it may not be so clear.  For example, if the AG had "added" terms to a law on gun control that the Congress had not included many people might be on the other side.