Members of the Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared skeptical of the federal government’s argument that a registered sex offender should be required to notify authorities when moving to another country. Full Article
If Scotus weighs in favorably for the defendant, can this be good for our IML case as well ?
Eric Knight
Guest
March 1, 2016 12:26 pm
Several of the justices, including Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer and Chief Justice John Roberts, grappled Tuesday with the language in the statute that defines an involved jurisdiction.
Seems a bit more involved than filling out a Price Club application, don’t it Johnny boy!! In my opinion, every time anything that has to do with sex offender registration is argued, Price Club should be brought out at strategic opportunities. In the meantime, Roberts knows that Smith v. Doe was the MAIN reason he’s on the Supreme Court and, in fact, is the Chief Justice.
steve
Guest
March 1, 2016 12:35 pm
I love this by Chief Justice Roberts who equated registering to “reneewing a price club membership”
17 CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: That’s an awful lot
to ask a a layperson to parse at the penalty of ten
years for being wrong.
This comment in reference to the plaintiff understanding the law.
Alito’s pedophile comment is disturbing and really the crux of our problem. Do they actually believe these laws ONLY affect pedophiles?
Marie
Guest
March 1, 2016 12:49 pm
Huh. Interesting.
Roberts said the statute is an “awful lot to ask a layperson to parse” in order to avoid the maximum 10-year sentence for violating SORNA.
Robert
Guest
March 1, 2016 1:35 pm
Pk. This is Rob and I told you I would let you know what happened when I came back in the US. Today I flew into San Francisco from Singapore. I went to Immigration counter to have my customs card flagged with a red marker and was told to go to secondary screenibg which is a private. I went there and put my passport in the bin and I sat down only to have my name called about 2 minutes later. They just asked me how long I was out of country and what countries I went to and if it was for business or vacation. Then he cleared me and said have a good day. I get my luggage and have to go to another screening. This is just to have my luggage searched. But was given my passport back everytime. They were very courteous and very goodin talking. Usually they ask me what happened back then and I tell them. The Immigration people are very good people. But LA are the worst. But so far I still have my passport
PK
Guest
March 1, 2016 2:52 pm
Justice Sotomayer:
I find interesting the new legislation. As I see it, it’s getting away from where you reside or anything else. It just says if you’re going to travel to a foreign place,
you have to tell the United States, correct?
Is there anything in that in that law that requires the U.S. to tell the State the person’s left that they’ve left?
JUSTICE BREYER:
All right. I’m trying to understand it. It is a jurisdiction that is involved in a special way.
It is a jurisdiction that used to be a residence, and it is no longer a residence.
And that creates an involvement even after they’re no longer a residence.
You know, the more I explain it, the less I understand it.
JUSTICE BREYER:
Oh, what he’s done is he’s lived in the Philippines for 15 years, and now he’s changed his residence to South Korea.
Does he have to tell Kansas? [the state where he originally left to move to the Phillipines]
JUSTICE KAGAN:
It seems to me that what you’re saying is that each of those offenders is supposed to recognize the underlying purpose of the law,
which is to have accurate registries, and to do everything he can to serve that underlying purpose.
And we would you know, it would be good if everybody did that.
But the text of the law is something different.
And if you look at this text of the law, there’s just no way that a reasonable reader reads that text and says it requires me to provide departure notification when I leave to another country.
JUSTICE GINSBURG:
So so who who is left out under the new law that would be covered under your reading of the old law?
MR.GANNON:
I I don’t think any my point is not that somebody is left out under the new law.
My point is that the new law captures many more people.
RIGHT EVERY SEX OFFENDER!!
USA
Guest
March 1, 2016 5:51 pm
This is clearly an example of overzealous law enforcement. The man moved out of the country? (Can you blame him). He left. I believe he will prevail!
David
Guest
March 2, 2016 2:54 am
I look forward to their decision. I expect their decision will be able to be used to defeat IML and, hopefully, SORNA itself (and ALL sex offender registries). Because, yes, Chief Justice Roberts, all this crap is too much to expect any non-lawyer to parse and abide by!
David
Guest
March 2, 2016 11:10 am
It’s interesting that coverage of this SCOTUS hearing was only reported in ONE news source: TheHill.com. Is it possible that the public’s interest in sex offender news is dissipating?
A
Guest
March 3, 2016 5:01 am
I think what is needed is a smoking gun of admission by any politician that their agenda is about furthering political carers based on this universal hatred of RC’s. And not, in fact, public safety. A quote like that would be an excellent start. Possibly a strong talking point of the adverse consequences to so many effected by this hatred.
If Scotus weighs in favorably for the defendant, can this be good for our IML case as well ?
Seems a bit more involved than filling out a Price Club application, don’t it Johnny boy!! In my opinion, every time anything that has to do with sex offender registration is argued, Price Club should be brought out at strategic opportunities. In the meantime, Roberts knows that Smith v. Doe was the MAIN reason he’s on the Supreme Court and, in fact, is the Chief Justice.
I love this by Chief Justice Roberts who equated registering to “reneewing a price club membership”
17 CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: That’s an awful lot
to ask a a layperson to parse at the penalty of ten
years for being wrong.
This comment in reference to the plaintiff understanding the law.
Alito’s pedophile comment is disturbing and really the crux of our problem. Do they actually believe these laws ONLY affect pedophiles?
Huh. Interesting.
Roberts said the statute is an “awful lot to ask a layperson to parse” in order to avoid the maximum 10-year sentence for violating SORNA.
Pk. This is Rob and I told you I would let you know what happened when I came back in the US. Today I flew into San Francisco from Singapore. I went to Immigration counter to have my customs card flagged with a red marker and was told to go to secondary screenibg which is a private. I went there and put my passport in the bin and I sat down only to have my name called about 2 minutes later. They just asked me how long I was out of country and what countries I went to and if it was for business or vacation. Then he cleared me and said have a good day. I get my luggage and have to go to another screening. This is just to have my luggage searched. But was given my passport back everytime. They were very courteous and very goodin talking. Usually they ask me what happened back then and I tell them. The Immigration people are very good people. But LA are the worst. But so far I still have my passport
Justice Sotomayer:
I find interesting the new legislation. As I see it, it’s getting away from where you reside or anything else. It just says if you’re going to travel to a foreign place,
you have to tell the United States, correct?
Is there anything in that in that law that requires the U.S. to tell the State the person’s left that they’ve left?
JUSTICE BREYER:
All right. I’m trying to understand it. It is a jurisdiction that is involved in a special way.
It is a jurisdiction that used to be a residence, and it is no longer a residence.
And that creates an involvement even after they’re no longer a residence.
You know, the more I explain it, the less I understand it.
JUSTICE BREYER:
Oh, what he’s done is he’s lived in the Philippines for 15 years, and now he’s changed his residence to South Korea.
Does he have to tell Kansas? [the state where he originally left to move to the Phillipines]
JUSTICE KAGAN:
It seems to me that what you’re saying is that each of those offenders is supposed to recognize the underlying purpose of the law,
which is to have accurate registries, and to do everything he can to serve that underlying purpose.
And we would you know, it would be good if everybody did that.
But the text of the law is something different.
And if you look at this text of the law, there’s just no way that a reasonable reader reads that text and says it requires me to provide departure notification when I leave to another country.
JUSTICE GINSBURG:
So so who who is left out under the new law that would be covered under your reading of the old law?
MR.GANNON:
I I don’t think any my point is not that somebody is left out under the new law.
My point is that the new law captures many more people.
RIGHT EVERY SEX OFFENDER!!
This is clearly an example of overzealous law enforcement. The man moved out of the country? (Can you blame him). He left. I believe he will prevail!
I look forward to their decision. I expect their decision will be able to be used to defeat IML and, hopefully, SORNA itself (and ALL sex offender registries). Because, yes, Chief Justice Roberts, all this crap is too much to expect any non-lawyer to parse and abide by!
It’s interesting that coverage of this SCOTUS hearing was only reported in ONE news source: TheHill.com. Is it possible that the public’s interest in sex offender news is dissipating?
I think what is needed is a smoking gun of admission by any politician that their agenda is about furthering political carers based on this universal hatred of RC’s. And not, in fact, public safety. A quote like that would be an excellent start. Possibly a strong talking point of the adverse consequences to so many effected by this hatred.