Another Opinion: US v. Comstock

You may also like...

2 Responses

  1. John Beasley says:

    The words mentally ill were not in the legislation. Rather “sexually dangerous” was the wording. The dissent is narrow only in its interpretation of the necessary and proper clause, which they argue, in accordance with past supreme court decisions, is limited to what is necessary for the operation of the Federal Government. Their issue is that the detention of prisoners after their prison sentence is up has nothing to do with effective governance.

  2. just another example of why I love Justice Thomas!!

    And Justice Alito did not join Justice Kennedy’s concurrence; he wrote his own…which I read as agreeing with the tenor of the dissent but just not thinking it applied in this case.