Group Called Texas Voices Seeks To List Only Most Dangerous on Sex Registries: Over the past few days Corey Rayburn Yung and Dog Berman had posts on Sex Crimes and Sentencing Law and Policy discussing the efforts of Texas Voices to limit sex offender registries to only those offenders who are dangerous predators. The Houston Chronicle has this report on the effort. Apparently Texas Voices "believes community notification laws fail to protect the public,
because they don't distinguish dangerous predators from otherwise
harmless men and women who foolishly had sex with underage lovers,
served their sentences and don't need a lifetime of public scrutiny." Yung's post argues that while Voices' efforts "could improve sex offender registries" he thinks the better solution is to "give the power to judges to make actual determinations as to the dangerousness of offenders ..." Grits for Breakfast also has this post.
More Supreme Court Case Commentary From Federalist Society: The Federalist Society recently posted this page providing commentary from Lee Casey on habeas cases Waddington v. Sarausad and Hedgpeth v. Pulido. Casey, a Partner at Baker Hostetler, specializes in federal, environmental, constitutional, election, and regulatory law issues, as well as international and international humanitarian law. He has also worked at the Office of Legal Counsel and the Office of Legal Policy at the U.S. Department of Justice. For those of you interested in CJLF's position in Pulido, our brief can be found here.
Justice Ginsburg Presides Over Re-Enactment of Muller v. Oregon: At Blog of the Legal Times Tony Mauro has a post describing last night's re-enactment of Muller v. Oregon at the Supreme Court. The event was sponsored by the the Supreme Court Historical Society and pitted Georgetown University Law Center professor Vicki Jackson against New York Solicitor General Barbara Underwood. Muller involved an Oregon law that limited to ten the number of hours a woman could work in a day at a factory or laundry. Mauro reports the case is probably most remembered "for a brief filed by then-consumer advocate Louis Brandeis in support of the law." The "Brandeis brief," dwelled not on the facts of the case but on social science and health research, statistics and government labor reports to make its case. In 1908, the Justices voted to uphold the Oregon law, and last night Ginsburg commented that she would have done the same. In addition, Justice Ginsburg used Muller to bring attention to the modern debate over whether judges who are interpreting the U.S. Constitution should consider foreign laws, rulings and data. According to Mauro, with regard to the "Brandeis brief" Ginsburg asked "What is the relevance of all these practices and regulations abroad? Shouldn't we disregard them?" We know Ginsburg wouldn't disregard foreign opinions today, but it is interesting that she gave an advocate the chance to explain the relevance of foreign data last night.
More Supreme Court Case Commentary From Federalist Society: The Federalist Society recently posted this page providing commentary from Lee Casey on habeas cases Waddington v. Sarausad and Hedgpeth v. Pulido. Casey, a Partner at Baker Hostetler, specializes in federal, environmental, constitutional, election, and regulatory law issues, as well as international and international humanitarian law. He has also worked at the Office of Legal Counsel and the Office of Legal Policy at the U.S. Department of Justice. For those of you interested in CJLF's position in Pulido, our brief can be found here.
Justice Ginsburg Presides Over Re-Enactment of Muller v. Oregon: At Blog of the Legal Times Tony Mauro has a post describing last night's re-enactment of Muller v. Oregon at the Supreme Court. The event was sponsored by the the Supreme Court Historical Society and pitted Georgetown University Law Center professor Vicki Jackson against New York Solicitor General Barbara Underwood. Muller involved an Oregon law that limited to ten the number of hours a woman could work in a day at a factory or laundry. Mauro reports the case is probably most remembered "for a brief filed by then-consumer advocate Louis Brandeis in support of the law." The "Brandeis brief," dwelled not on the facts of the case but on social science and health research, statistics and government labor reports to make its case. In 1908, the Justices voted to uphold the Oregon law, and last night Ginsburg commented that she would have done the same. In addition, Justice Ginsburg used Muller to bring attention to the modern debate over whether judges who are interpreting the U.S. Constitution should consider foreign laws, rulings and data. According to Mauro, with regard to the "Brandeis brief" Ginsburg asked "What is the relevance of all these practices and regulations abroad? Shouldn't we disregard them?" We know Ginsburg wouldn't disregard foreign opinions today, but it is interesting that she gave an advocate the chance to explain the relevance of foreign data last night.
Leave a comment