Families of SOs Community Group
WE HAVE MOVED!!! ............................. ............................... ......................... ............................ ............................. .......................... HERE: http://support-for-families.boards.net ............. ................ ............... ................ ............................... .................Please create a profile...
For those that are not clear, here is a little break down of Smith v. Doe:
Smith v. Doe is a case that made its way to the US Supreme Court and was decided in 2003.
The question at hand was, "Does the Ex Post Facto Clause of Article I Section 10 prohibit the Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act's registration requirement as a retroactive punishment?"
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court held that because sex offender registration is non-punitive it does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. (1)
Now that we have a brief idea of what the case was about and what was decided let's look at the justices and see what they decided and see if we can gleam any opinion on future decisions based on where they lean politically. In order to do this we must have a basic understanding of the ideologies of the Supreme Court justices back in 2003 when Smith v. Doe was decided and now in 2015.
2003: The Supreme Court in 2003 had 4 conservatives (Rehnquist, O’Connor, Scalia, and Thomas), 4 liberals (Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg, Stevens), and one swing vote (Kennedy) (2)
2015: The Supreme Court in its current iteration has 4 conservative justices (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito), and 4 liberal justices (Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer), and one swing vote (Kennedy) (3).
Now in 2003 the 6 justices who declared that the registry is not punishment so it does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause were the four conservatives, (Rehnquist, O’Connor, Scalia, and Thomas), the swing vote (Kennedy), and one liberal (Souter).
So if we look at who is still on the court today, we can see we would lose again because it is 3-2 against us. The 3 justices who voted against us in 2003 that are still on the court are Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy. The 2 justices who voted for us in 2003 that are still on the court are Ginsberg and Breyer.
This is next part requires some extrapolation, this is where we may disagree, but I think it should be plain to most people how the newly appointed Supreme Court Justices will vote. And if you believe otherwise I would love to hear what evidence you have to support such conclusions.
Let’s look at the 4 other Supreme Court justices who made the bench since 2003 and took the place of four of the justices in Smith v. Doe.
Alito: Appointed by George W. Bush in 2006, is the most conservative person on the bench. Would most likely follow lines with the majority and vote to keep the registry. (3)
Roberts: Chief justice, appointed by George W. Bush in 2005, he argued for the government in Smith v. Doe, so there is literally zero doubt on his stance, he is clearly a no vote for the registry being against the constitution. (3)
Kagan: Appointed by Barack Obama in 2010, the most liberal of all justices on the court. There is little doubt in my mind that she would side with the other liberals and say the registry is an Ex Post Facto violation of the constitution. (3)
Sotomayor: Appointed by Barack Obama in 2009, the 2nd most liberal justice on the court. I also have little doubt that she too would support the liberal opinion and join Ginsburg and Breyer. (3)
Conclusion: If we took another sex offender registry case to the Supreme Court in its current iteration, we would most likely lose a 5-4 decision split right down ideological lines of liberal versus conservative.
Works cited:
1. http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_01_729#sort=vote
2. http://www.targetpointconsulting.com/scotusscores-labels.html
3. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/upshot/a-more-nuanced-breakdown-of-the-supreme-court.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1
Smith v. Doe is a case that made its way to the US Supreme Court and was decided in 2003.
The question at hand was, "Does the Ex Post Facto Clause of Article I Section 10 prohibit the Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act's registration requirement as a retroactive punishment?"
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court held that because sex offender registration is non-punitive it does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. (1)
Now that we have a brief idea of what the case was about and what was decided let's look at the justices and see what they decided and see if we can gleam any opinion on future decisions based on where they lean politically. In order to do this we must have a basic understanding of the ideologies of the Supreme Court justices back in 2003 when Smith v. Doe was decided and now in 2015.
2003: The Supreme Court in 2003 had 4 conservatives (Rehnquist, O’Connor, Scalia, and Thomas), 4 liberals (Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg, Stevens), and one swing vote (Kennedy) (2)
2015: The Supreme Court in its current iteration has 4 conservative justices (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito), and 4 liberal justices (Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer), and one swing vote (Kennedy) (3).
Now in 2003 the 6 justices who declared that the registry is not punishment so it does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause were the four conservatives, (Rehnquist, O’Connor, Scalia, and Thomas), the swing vote (Kennedy), and one liberal (Souter).
So if we look at who is still on the court today, we can see we would lose again because it is 3-2 against us. The 3 justices who voted against us in 2003 that are still on the court are Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy. The 2 justices who voted for us in 2003 that are still on the court are Ginsberg and Breyer.
This is next part requires some extrapolation, this is where we may disagree, but I think it should be plain to most people how the newly appointed Supreme Court Justices will vote. And if you believe otherwise I would love to hear what evidence you have to support such conclusions.
Let’s look at the 4 other Supreme Court justices who made the bench since 2003 and took the place of four of the justices in Smith v. Doe.
Alito: Appointed by George W. Bush in 2006, is the most conservative person on the bench. Would most likely follow lines with the majority and vote to keep the registry. (3)
Roberts: Chief justice, appointed by George W. Bush in 2005, he argued for the government in Smith v. Doe, so there is literally zero doubt on his stance, he is clearly a no vote for the registry being against the constitution. (3)
Kagan: Appointed by Barack Obama in 2010, the most liberal of all justices on the court. There is little doubt in my mind that she would side with the other liberals and say the registry is an Ex Post Facto violation of the constitution. (3)
Sotomayor: Appointed by Barack Obama in 2009, the 2nd most liberal justice on the court. I also have little doubt that she too would support the liberal opinion and join Ginsburg and Breyer. (3)
Conclusion: If we took another sex offender registry case to the Supreme Court in its current iteration, we would most likely lose a 5-4 decision split right down ideological lines of liberal versus conservative.
Works cited:
1. http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_01_729#sort=vote
2. http://www.targetpointconsulting.com/scotusscores-labels.html
3. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/upshot/a-more-nuanced-breakdown-of-the-supreme-court.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1
So the four cases I brought up:
1. Scalia was in the majority of the 5-4 decision in Kansas v Hendricks which said it is not a due process violation to civilly hold a sex offender after their prison term.
2. Scalia was one of two justices in the minority of a 7-2 decision in Kansas v Crane. The other justices said there needed to be a finding of lack of self control, Scalia and Thomas said otherwise.
3. Scalia was in the 6-3 majority of smith v doe.
4. He was in the 5-4 minority in paroline v United States that said victims of CP need to show proximate cause to collect damages from CP offenders. This has the effect of lowering the amount of money each CP offender would have to pay.
So Scalia was against us in those 4 cases, you are right he could potentially join our side, but I will not believe that until I see it. Call me doubting Thomas, but I think Scalia has made his stance clear.
In the same vein Thomas has always been against us in all those same cases. Chief Justice Roberts argued for the government in smith v doe, so I would think it would be tough to see him flip sides, and he was against us in paroline.
So yes in my opinion we do still need to stack the deck if we want to see positive results. You are correct in that the case is different now than it was before in smith v doe. But public vitriol for sex offenders has also grown since too. Which makes it less likely the Supreme Court would even grant certiorari to a sex offender case because it would be very unpopular decision to release us off our leash.
Again I agree with you that the justices should see the registry as punishment, but based on previous decisions I don't hold out much hope that they will decide a case the logical way.
Can you at least see that from the vote splits on these 4 sex offender cases, we have more support from the liberal block than the conservative block? Why do you think that is?
I am with Aladdin on this and we have not always agreed on things, but on this we are lock step..
Reality trumps ideology. Do I wish SCOTUS would throw out registration? Of course. Do I think a liberal SCOTUS is more likely to do so? Nope, sorry, not gonna happen, modifications? Maybe, throw out? Nope.
Good night ya'll, gotta work all weekend, sucks, but the overtime comes in handy.
Yawn.
@coastie substantive due process means everyone needs to be treated fairly under the law.
Dude, how many facts have I given you?, Including a link to examples of Sotomayor's rulings as both a Fed District and Appeals Court Judge.. You've given 4 whole facts.
I guess you're just gonna have to find out yourself.
Now I am really done on this because you're just spinning in circles and this has just become ridiculous...
Ciao..
You are quite well educated? You certainly don't act like it. An educated person is not afraid to have a conversation. They are not afraid to consider another's ideas. An educated person also knows how to count. I show you the four most prominent sex offender cases and how the conservatives voted and your response is neither side is more favorable to RSOs. Maybe you need to read back through the court cases again.
Good day,
There are four liberals on each case for a total of 16 votes. Liberals voted against us 2 out of 16 times. 12.5% of the time they have been against us.
How is that equal?
You say there were three conservative justices that voted against RSO's but in Paroline they dissented from the majority because the majority voted in favor of making individuals possessing images from the the Amy series pay something in restitution. Their position was the statutes in question effectively precluded restitution in most CP cases so Paroline couldn't be ordered to pay anything and that the method chosen by the majority to determine how much an individual defendant should pay was arbitrary and denied criminal defendants the required due process.
Sotomayor did not join the dissent Of Roberts, Scalia and Thomas but instead wrote her own in which she stated Paroline and every other defendant possessing any of the Amy images should be required to pay the full 3.4 million dollars. Any fears of unfair treatment towards particular defendants could be alleviated by allowing defendants pay on an installment plan.
So what sounds the most pro RSO to you?
A. The Majority Opinion - Forcing any defendant convicted of possessing any images from the Amy series to pay some arbitrary amount set by a judge without the opportunity for the defendant to heard to present any mitigating factors or other arguments.
B. The Roberts Dissent - No restitution at all for most CP defendants and when circumstances do allow for restitution a defendant is afforded due process to be heard and present mitigating factors and other arguments.
C. The Sotomayor Dissent - Anyone possessing any images of the Amy series pay to the full restitution amount of 3.4 million dollars with just enough due process to determine the installment payment plan.
Until these issues are actually heard by the Supreme Court it is a useless contest - and since we actually have no say in who gets appointed to the Supreme Court anyway we have to hope that they will fulfill their duty to uphold the Constitution regardless of political persuasion - it is our only course of action. If you can vote - then please do - because when a Supreme Court position is vacated it is certainly based on the current administration who gets appointed and how they will vote on issues.