SC Rules U.S. Can Hold Sex Offenders After Their Sentences Expire

Originally posted by no1marauder
You're being disingenuous as well as using a "strawman" argument. No one EVER claimed that Congress had "a carte blanche ......... to do whatever it feels is a good idea." But since it seems to be uncontested that Congress can pass laws regarding sexual predators and run prisons wherein they are housed just like the States can for the same reasons, it is ...[text shortened]... or later reference, that the Constitution meant to, and did, vastly expand Federal power.

Scalia and Thomas would not object to Congress passing a law regarding sex offenders extending their sentences, but for the Court to do this is the problem. It is the old thing of "legislatiing from the bench".

Originally posted by Sartor Resartus
Only the 'Chinese Chop' would guarantee a 100% success, and why not make it compulsory for persistent, and otherwise untreatable, offenders?

I don't know, maybe because its inhumane?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Essentially this guy is being imprisoned for trying to have consensual sex with an adult female.

since when is this a criminal offense?

Originally posted by generalissimo
I don't know, maybe because its inhumane?

Is it inhumane to release offenders who are virtually a sure bet to reoffend?

Originally posted by normbenign
Is it inhumane to release offenders who are virtually a sure bet to reoffend?

yes, it is.

but that doesn't mean the chinese chop is the only solution.

Originally posted by normbenign
Scalia and Thomas would not object to Congress passing a law regarding sex offenders extending their sentences, but for the Court to do this is the problem. It is the old thing of "legislatiing from the bench".

You rather clearly don't understand the case at all. Congress did pass such a law that was upheld by the SC with Thomas and Scalia dissenting on "federalism" grounds. It has nothing to do with so-called "legislating from the bench" (except to the extent that Thomas and Scalia were voting to overturn a statute).

EDIT: It's rather amusing to see one of our vocal right wingers jump in and declare Thomas and Scalia "right" when he has absolutely no clue what they are supposedly "right" about.