May 17 2010

Morning Facepalm

Open Thread.

AP: WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that federal officials can indefinitely hold inmates considered “sexually dangerous” after their prison terms are complete.

The high court reversed a lower court decision that said Congress overstepped its authority in allowing indefinite detentions of considered “sexually dangerous.”

go read the whole article here at WaPo

Photobucket

I’m a little confused. Help me out here, folks.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, saying Congress can only pass laws that deal with the federal powers listed in the Constitution.

Nothing in the Constitution “expressly delegates to Congress the power to enact a civil commitment regime for sexually dangerous persons, nor does any other provision in the Constitution vest Congress or the other branches of the federal government with such a power,” Thomas said.

Thomas was joined in part on his dissent by Justice Antonin Scalia.

Chief Justice John Roberts last year granted an administration request to block the release of up to 77 inmates at a federal prison in North Carolina. These were people whose prison terms for sex offenses were ending. The justice’s order was designed to allow time for the high court to consider the administration’s appeal.

OKay, wait. A lot confused.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., ruled last year that Congress overstepped its authority when it enacted a law allowing the government to hold indefinitely people who are considered “sexually dangerous.”

But “we conclude that the Constitution grants Congress legislative power sufficient to enact” this law, Breyer said.

I really hate this, i.e. my impatience and lack of comprehension here.

I agree: “Congress overstepped its authority when it enacted a law allowing the government to hold indefinitely people who are considered “sexually dangerous.”

huh? SCOTUS ruling now does not agree? Here it is again:

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that federal officials can indefinitely hold inmates considered “sexually dangerous” after their prison terms are complete.

What am I missing?

24 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. Photobucket

  2. ….and with that SD designation they will be imprisoned forever. A “federal official” appointed by who? someone who was suggested by the company that owns the prison?

    There is a prison lobby in DC that wants more prisons and more people to “inhabit” the prisons.

    So the Dem appointed Justices voted for this? I am confused too.

    • TMC on May 17, 2010 at 17:45
    • #

    Court: Sexually Dangerous Can Be Kept in Prison

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that federal officials can indefinitely hold inmates considered ”sexually dangerous” after their prison terms are complete.

    The high court reversed a lower court decision that said Congress overstepped its authority in allowing indefinite detentions of considered ”sexually dangerous.”

    snip

    The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., ruled last year that Congress overstepped its authority when it enacted a law allowing the government to hold indefinitely people who are considered ”sexually dangerous.”

    The 4th Circuit ruled Congress overstepped its authority. SCOTUS ruling says, no they didn’t.

    Justice Thomas was the dissenting opinion. He and Scalia disagreed with the majority ruling which upheld Congress

  4. AdmaB has it over there, Ill go read some more I guess.

    Why is this case a big deal?  Because in accepting a broadened scope for the Necessary and Proper Clause in empowering the federal government to address concerns multiple steps removed from the Article I enumerated powers, it allows an energetic Congress to address these issues of key public concern without forcing the weighty constitutional amendment process every time some new issue arises.  

  5. Where would such a law stop?  Quarantine?  What about the reality of prison being punishment?

  6. indefinite holding beyond the term of the original sentence. Sounds a little ex post facto to me. But I guess “indefinite holding” is becoming quite the latest rage.

    It’s nice to know that the powers of congress are protected in matters of creative federal sentencing. But watch out for things like the power to declare war.

    But as far as this case is concerned, it’s just your basic SCOTUS reversal. Sounds like a set up for Kagan to knock out of the park in passionate support.  

  7. ….better on Health Care, a little better on transparency, a little better on torture.

    I was for Obama over Clinton in the primaries, but in hindsight I would have voted for Clinton.

  8. …actually speaks.  But I wish he hadn’t because it’s nonsense and confusing.

Comments have been disabled.