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
Agree to disagree, and leave the personal attacks out of it. If this continues further, I will delete this thread.
So could they be on our side, in that sense, maybe. But does it help us on the long run? My opinion is we need justices to agree that RSO laws are a substantive due process violation of we are going to get anywhere.