Great stuff as always. It is interesting in Kansas v. Hendricks that Thomas and Scalia were in the majority upholding a Kansas law concerning civil commitment after the criminals scheduled release. Breyer was in the minority. The challenge to the law was on different grounds but I still find it interesting.
Thomas, writing for the majority, stated,
"We hold that the Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act comports with due process requirements and neither runs afoul of double jeopardy principles nor constitutes an exercise in impermissible ex post-facto lawmaking. Accordingly, the judgment of the Kansas Supreme Court is reversed"
Sheldon,
ReplyDeleteGreat stuff as always. It is interesting in Kansas v. Hendricks that Thomas and Scalia were in the majority upholding a Kansas law concerning civil commitment after the criminals scheduled release. Breyer was in the minority. The challenge to the law was on different grounds but I still find it interesting.
Thomas, writing for the majority, stated,
"We hold that the Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act comports with due process requirements and neither runs afoul of double jeopardy principles nor constitutes an exercise in impermissible ex post-facto lawmaking. Accordingly, the judgment of the Kansas Supreme Court is reversed"
I guess the difference is that one case was a federal assertion of power, the other a state assertion.
ReplyDelete