The Gravity of Supreme Court Appointments
(Weekly Update #197)
Dear Members and Advocates,
It is hard to discuss nomination of a Supreme Court Justice without walking on eggshells, worrying that readers will take it to be political commentary. Ironically, the role of a Supreme Court Justice requires that the holder of the position be fair and impartial. So how did the topic become so polarizing?
It wasn’t always like this. Take, for example, the nomination of Stephen Breyer, the Justice whom nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson would be replacing. Justice Breyer was appointed with a vote of 87 to 9 in 1994. The year before that, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, was appointed with a vote of 96-3. And it was not just nominees from that side of the isle. Regan appointees; Kennedy, Scalia and O’Connor were all unanimous votes.
So, as a preface to reading this week’s update, please trust that this is not a partisan take on the current nominee. Let’s focus this week’s update on why any Supreme Court Justice is important to our cause and what our movement should want in any Justice.
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest court in this country. Where a District Court sets binding case law for that district and a Circuit Court of Appeals sets binding case law for the states within that circuit, the decisions of the SCOTUS is binding on the entire country. The worst case to impact our movement was a 2003 SCOTUS case called Smith v. Doe, which was based on the false premise that recidivism among those who have committed a sexual offense was “frightening and high”. This crucial mistake was the foundation for what later courts have described as a “blank check” for jurisdictions across the United States to pass whatever draconian restrictions they want, and it was not punishment because the Supreme Court said it wasn’t.
There are several things that influenced Smith v. Doe. First, the Court allowed the “frightening and high” myth to infect their decision because the majority didn’t investigate the facts. Contrary to popular belief, “frightening and high” didn’t originate with Smith v. Doe, but with an earlier case, McKune v. Lile. The Justices in Smith essentially adopted the myth from McKune without a second thought. As a Justice, we want someone who has the intelligence to challenge what’s presented to them, investigate the social science and come up with their own decisions.
The second thing that influenced Smith v. Doe was bad timing. In 1994, just about the time the Jacob Wetterling act was enacted, Megan Kanka was sexually assaulted and murdered by a neighbor who was previously convicted of a sex offense. Although incredibly rare, this tragedy made it seem as though the Wetterling Act “wasn’t enough” to save Megan and “more” needed to be done. From that time, anyone who would have opposed that “more” regardless of how ineffective, might as well have killed Megan themselves in the public’s eyes. As a Justice, we want someone who has the fortitude to do what’s right and what’s legal, regardless of whether it’s the popular decision or not.
The third thing that influenced Smith v. Doe was a lack of real-world insight. During oral arguments in Smith, attorney John Roberts (now Chief Justice) stated that sex offense registration is the same as applying for membership at Price Club. Clearly anyone who actually knows someone on the registry will tell you that’s a ridiculous statement. Candidly, before my involvement in this cause, I probably would have believed it myself. Having real-world insight into how onerous and restrictive registration actually is, I know better. As a Justice, we want someone who brings a diversity of experience and background to the Court. Perhaps someone who actually knows someone who has been a criminal defendant would have that insight.
With that in mind, as you watch or read about the proceedings surrounding the consideration of Ms. Brown Jackson to the SCOTUS, or anyone for that matter, ask yourself whether the individual has the intelligence to challenge what’s presented to them, investigate the social science and come up with their own decisions. When it comes to our cause, the research and social science is on our side. Also, consider whether the person has the fortitude to do what’s right and what’s legal, regardless of whether it’s the popular decision or not. Keep in mind, we are caught up in a very politically sensitive issue. And finally, consider whether the person brings a diversity of experience and background to the Court. What are the chances this person might know someone in our shoes, so they realize the registry is not similar to applying for a membership at Price Club.
Sincerely,
The Florida Action Committee
ANNOUNCEMENTS
See Calendar of Events – Click Here for Calendar, and double click on the event to view details and RSVP instructions. Keep up with Meet-and-Greets in your area, Support groups, Membership Calls, and other events. For questions, contact membership@floridaactioncommittee.org or call 833-273-7325,Option 1.
- Join the County Coordinator Team. Only requirement is your desire to HELP us organize your county. Training for new Coordinators is available. Choose best day/time for you: Sunday 7-8pm (March 27), Wednesday 7pm (March 30), or Thursday 1-2pm (March 31). Dial (760) 548-9898.
- Fearless Group Call Monday March 28 at 7pm Dial (727) 731-2927
- Meet-and-Greet in Hillsborough April 2 from 1:00-3:00pm. RSVP (727) 731-2927 or email daphne.fac@gmail.com.
- Free Viewing of “Untouchable Documentary” April 4-7. Link will be emailed and posted on website April 4th and available through midnight April 7th.
- Monthly Membership Call Thursday April 7 at 8pm. Topic: Untouchable Documentary. Guest speaker Shawna Baldwin. Dial 319-527-3487
- Family Support Group (by Zoom) Sat Apr 9 from 11:00-1:00pmET
- New Member Orientation Call Thursday April 14 at 8pm. No Agenda. Learn more about FAC, ask questions, get resources, volunteer. Dial 319-527-3487
- A national conference is planned for March 2023 that includes a vigil on the steps of the United States Supreme Court. Watch for details!
SOME HEADLINES FROM THIS WEEK
The Dobbs Wire: Rights for ALL?
The Dobbs Wire: Rights for all? Alarmingly, individuals and groups who are despised get shortchanged on constitutional rights. In a new piece for The Nation, JoAnn Wypijewski tackles this topic just as the Senate considers Ketanji Brown Jackson for a seat on the…
SC lawmakers looking to modify state sex offender registry laws
State lawmakers continue their work to make changes to the state’s sex offender registry laws. Last year, the state Supreme Court ordered South Carolina’s lifelong registry was unconstitutional. Lawmakers have until June to create a way for offenders who are at…
Man Jailed on Failure to Register Killed by Cellmate
Scott XXXX, 59, was found unresponsive in his cell shortly after 5 p.m. on March 15, according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. He died around half an hour later due to his injuries. XXXX was admitted into the CDCR system on Feb. 23. He…
The Sad “Operation March Sadness”
It’s only half-way through the month of March, but Sheriff Grady Judd of Polk County, who is now infamous for his name and shame press conferences touting the “success” of sex stings, has already netted more than 100 people in his latest operation which he named…
Fact-finding is not SCOTUS’ role, as KBJ acknowledged during the hearing.
We cannot rely on SCOTUS to challenge the facts presented to them. The facts must be properly presented at trial court level.
“stated that sex offense registration is the same as applying for membership at Price Club”.
I am sorry. The last time I checked, all the price clubs have a way to close your account or not renew. There is ZERO % Comparison value between the two.
That is like comparing a Piece of cardboard to a Steak dinner.
There is a saying that you grow when you go to the hard places. Politics can be a hard place to go to, but it is an integral part of what advocacy is about.
Kudos to the author of this article. I personally could not agree more.
There is a lot of talk about the value of diversity, but I feel too many do not grasp its value. I can attest to having a completely different view of an offender and how to “deal” with them than I do now. Diversity’s value comes from the probability that because that other person has had different experiences, they can bring fresh perspective to your point of view.
As advocates we should champion those that are open to challenging the status quo mentality that punishment is the best way to make society better. We have the science that says otherwise.
from todays headline:
WASHINGTON — After all of the entreaties from top Republicans to show respect at Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s confirmation hearings, Senator Ted Cruz on Tuesday afternoon chose to grill the first Black woman nominated for the Supreme Court on her views on critical race theory and insinuate that she was soft on child sexual abuse.
The message from the Texas Republican seemed clear: A Black woman vying for a lifetime appointment on the highest court in the land would, Mr. Cruz suggested, coddle criminals, go easy on pedophiles…..
sound familiar?
G
And the fact that what they are saying is, if she gets appointed, she would be the supreme leader of the court and all powerful. She alone would be able to wave a magic wand and release all people with sex offenses with her loud and proud voice. Does anyone even know how the supreme court works? LOL
Also, the word sex offender is hardly used during these talks. All of us seem to be lumped into Child sexual predators. Doesn’t matter if your arrest was a Drunken night of overzealous sex when your adult partner said no many times, or someone looking at computer images. Everyone arrested even in these stings are being lumped into the Sexual predator category.
Also, in many cases I have followed, the supreme court has done some odd things. Refuse or choose to not hear a case at all or decide to kick the case back to the lower court. And on some cases I followed, the case could take eons to have a ruling. As far as I know, only emergency hearings get fast tracked.
And if you do not already know this, there are so many cases trying to even make it to the supreme court, only a few even ever make it. If all the cases pending a supreme court hearing were to be heard, I think the wait would outlive the judges LOL
G
The Term Pedophile is a DSM-3 Classification, so therefore, a person that is a Pedophile must be classified as such by a Certified Medical Professional
Ted Cruz, should be certified as Freakin IDIOT!
Thank You!
Truth
Senator Cruz does have a MD beyond him, but in this case MD stands for Major Disappointment. We should give him back to Canada!! Id take Bieber any day over Cruz.
So Far..So Good!
She stumbled on the CP Stuff (Which I have NO clue about); But I think she was Discussing the Volumes of it in the Computer Age versus Back in the day when things were sent in the mail-via snail mail!-to establish sentencing guidelines….I remember, guys telling me about this when I was locked up and I would read their cases and was just astonished on the amount of time some of these dudes got,,,one dude got 30 years-he never killed anyone, but inadvertenly downloaded some crap and got 30 years!
And Fcker Carlson, oops, Tucker from Fox News, Totally Twisted What she was Testifying to, Yesterday! Along with The Spine-less Politician From Missouri!
Truth
When I got arrested, computers existed, but I did not own one. However I spoke with several guys who were locked up that got more time for looking at restricted porn than what I got for actually touching a physical person. And what is sad, the Feds should have been focusing on taking that porn down and going after those posting it as well.
Reminds me that it is easier to go after people that buy or possess drugs that the big time drug dealer. Almost as if they are afraid if they eliminate the dealers, fewer arrests will be made and the officers will lose their jobs or get moved to patrol. Think about it. Like over fishing a lake, once you catch all the fish, you have to get a new hobby or find another lake to fish out.
As long as there are dealers, the cops have a job.
I haven’t watched the hearings because I knew it would just increase my blood pressure and knew what was more likely to happen, so why watch. I support Judge Brown-Jackson because of her experience, intelligence, and believe she’ll make the right decision.
Supreme Court nominees and the nomination process should be discussed even if it relates to politics. If more Justices see the evidence for our side that’s a win that could overturn the registry.
Glad you did not watch. Today she said she agrees we should be monitored. She did not mention the registry but you can take that statement how you want. Monitoring of any person no longer on sanctions should be against the law.
She was really being pressured but she never said she was against the registry and said we ALL need to be monitored. That worried me. Was it the pressure or is she pro registry?
If someone is on probation, parole, or house arrest I can see being monitored, but when a sentence has been completely no more monitoring.
As how she feels about the registry is a risk we don’t know for sure, yet we should focus on how she’s done as a judge. I’m sure she felt tremendous pressure with the vultures circling around her previous decisions and her answers.
I’ve watched some of it afterwards and I wanted to hit something, but I just had blood work done. Good thing my blood didn’t look like oil.