Non-delegation Doctrine in Sex Offender Cases Relisted
The Supreme Court of the United States have scheduled the following three cases for “relisting”
Gundy v. United States, 17-6086
Paul v. United States, 17-8830
Caldwell v. United States, 18-6852
All cases have the same issue, “Whether the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act’s delegation to the Attorney General in 34 U.S.C. § 20913(d) (formerly 42 U.S.C. § 16913(d)) violates the constitutional nondelegation doctrine.”
According to SCOTUSBlog, “When a case is “relisted,” that means that it is set for reconsideration at the Justices’ next Conference. Unlike a hold, this will show up on the case’s electronic docket. A relist can mean several things, including the fairly straightforward prospect that one or more Justices wants to take a closer look at the case; that one or more Justices is trying to pick up enough votes to grant review (four are needed); that the Justices are writing a summary reversal (that is, a decision that the lower court opinion was so wrong that the Court can decide the case on the merits without briefing or oral argument); or that one or more Justices are writing a dissent from the decision to deny review.”
In July, Gundy requested a rehearing. The other two cases are from the 6th circuit and were requesting review by the SCOTUS.
While rehearings are rarely granted, and the consensus among legal scholars is to not get hopes up, so we’re just sharing the info.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Here is a link to some cases regarding SORNA,
http://jaapl.org/content/41/2/308
I am probably in the minority here but, given the strong tone of the dissent by Gorsuch that was joined by the Chief Justice and Thomas along with some leanings by to reconsider by Alito make me hopeful.
So if Gundy is reheard, Kavanaugh will be included this time. If Gin$burg is too $ick to participate, we could have a more favorable outcome.
These Judges need to take back their power from these Political ambition people. If a person was sentence. You can’t go down the road 7 years later and add to a punishment then call it civil or whatever you dressed it to look petty on the books. What happen in the past should done with once and for all. Wake the F*ck up in Washigton D.C. Yeah I broke the law but Crap let me get on with my life too.
I can’t speak for legal scholars BUT based on my observations combined with common sense I have personally lost hope.
The SCOTUS isn’t interest in facts so forget that hope.
Their real job is nothing to do with justice, fairness or even reality if you get right down to it. Their job is social engineering using precedent to keep the trajectory going. Evolutionary psychology explains this form of social “shaming” and its function quite clearly.
It is obvious that the label of “sex offender” was created to provide a group that can have hate focused on them to show what the government can and will do to those to step out of line.
The lie of protecting children simply taps into the innate societal drive and is not (and never was) the real reason at all.
Question:
Are the justices of the SCOTUS aware of the inaccuracies and or falsifications of the information that was used to pass these draconian registry laws?
If not, can protesters march with placards displaying the lies used to pass unjust laws?
Can we force them to learn the truth?
They already know these are the top legal minds in the world. We gotta poke holes.