Exactly my point. No final decision has been issued, yet too many people are celebrating. The simple fact that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has given the prosecution a second chance to present evidence to support their position warns us not to celebrate before the game is over.

I believe that the case was originally before the supreme court at an earlier date, then remanded back to Chester County who found it unconstitutional, which sent it back to the supreme court where it has been argued and is awaiting decision.

The whole idea that the word “reputation” magically makes Pennsylvania’s case unique is flawed. The state will simply argue that the offender lost the right to good reputation through his own illegal actions, just as an offender loses his rights to liberty when he breaks the law. The truth is that we should all hope that more state cases make it to the US Supreme Court so that they will revisit the issue in total, and stop allowing the government to persecute people with a system that serves no purpose other than to inflict additional punishment.

SCOTUS cannot/will not overrule the PA State Supreme Court should they rule in our favor BECAUSE the issue deals with the PA Constitution and not the US Constitution. If it were to rule they would have to say that no PA citizen has a right to a good reputation under any circumstance. The Federal Constitution has no provisions dealing with reputation in it. Therefore, Amendment X of the Federal Constitution kicks in leaving SCOTUS out of jurisdiction.

Pennsylvania has a unique right to reputation that is found only in the Pennsylvania Constitution. I urge other states to petition for a right to reputation be added to their states Bill of Rights. Megan’s Law/SORNA falls facially unconstitutional in Pennsylvania due to Article 1,Section 1 of the State Constitution.

I looked it up and here’s what I found https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_don%27t_make_a_right
Seems to me that many of you all can understand this logic that is conflicting mankind today in many ways. During one’s probation period in many cases the parole officer will ask you to sign a wavier to say you knew you were talking to a teen age girl. If one signed that wavier than that is a death sentence and a con. If one didn’t sign than there is hope.

I’m sure many should check into this as why would they want one to sign a wavier to say they were talking to a teenage girl when they were really not. Case dismissed …

The SORA is a political thing. It’s definitely a purnishment. These people have Done their Time, as well as Murderers. What’s the difference?

If sorna is unconstitutional in one State, it should be unconstitutional Nation Wide. What is Wrong with this Country that we call the US?

And would that case even be necessary if the Torsilieri decision carried any real weight in Pennsylvania? What if this trial judge decides just the opposite? Again, I just want to caution everyone that only a state’s Supreme Court can rule whether their laws are unconstitutional or not. That just hasn’t happened yet. They have upheld their registry law in the past. And if they ever do strike it down, who knows what their legislature will replace it with. We offenders in Michigan are still on the state’s sex offender registry, even though the law that was in place when my crime was committed was completely abolished by the courts. Pennsylvania’s Superior Court could take up the issue immediately and resolve it, but no one can tell them when to do it. But until they do, I suspect that every defendant for a sex crime is going to raise that same issue with the trial courts. And if you have a public defender, you are probably out of luck.