SCOTUS: Feds Can Hold "Sexually Dangerous" Prisoners Indefinitely

Interesting ruling in United States v. Comstock--one that is likely the result of the progressive desire to expand federal power beyond that which is Constitutionally enumerated merging with 'for the children' emotionalism. Viola! New Conressional authority to enact laws is discovered!

The 7-2 decision overturned a ruling by an appeals court that Congress had exceeded its authority by enacting the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, a law named after the murdered son of America’s Most Wanted host John Walsh and signed into law in 2006 by Bush 43.

Stephen Breyer wrote the majority opinion, thereby offering up the best evidence the ruling stands in favor of expanding federal power. In his opinion, he stated the Constitution grants Congress the authority to enact the Walsh Act as necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” the powers “vested by” the Constitution in the Government.

Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented, arguing that, while protecting children is a noble goal, it is beyond the power of Congress to protect the nation from every single threat that may befall it.

Many states have enacted similar laws to keep sexual predators off the streets. I am curious how necessary it was under the circumstances for Congress to get into the act. I do not recall much of the path to the Walsh act’s passage, but I imagine the high profile of Adam Walsh’s kidnapping and murder combined with his father’s national fame within law enforcement circles demanded federal action. I am inclined to agree with Scalia and Thomas. While the act’s intentions are oble, I would rather see fifty individual state laws than one federal.

Side note: Elana Kagan, Barack Obama's SCOTUS nominee, argued the government's case back in January, so here is a victory for her.