Was the trigger point for John Roberts’ appointment based upon Smith v Doe?

One of the most influential appointments in the history of the United states has turned out to be John Roberts, Chief Justice and Price Club Manager of the United States Supreme Court. I am in the process of researching how judicial appointments were made in the United States, including both the historical records as well as political gamesmanship in making those selections.

John Roberts had a long career as a litigator. While his career was built upon litigating for gay rights as well as for individuals against corporations, by the time he was arguing federally, he was representing big corporations, particularly energy companies. This isn’t a dig; I don’t have a problem with such litigation when there is merit one way or the other.

He litigated 35 times in front of SCOTUS. He won 19 of them. 18 of those victories were related in civil cases that didn’t have criminal sanctions attached to any aspect of the decision. On his last case before SCOTUS, came Smith v. Doe. Arguing the high recidivism rates of sex offenders, as well as the simplicity of a pleasant Tuesday morning filling out a Price Club application, John Roberts was able to convince the majority to rule the unconstitution al constitutional . Read that slowly and digest.

In fact, that last case alerted Karl Rove’s associate, who was assisting the state of Alaska with regard to the 9th Circuit decision that originally lost (and was the case that was appealed to Smith v. Doe), to how effective influential John Roberts truly was in that decision. Will B had indicated a case that destroyed the report of high recidivism that Roberts’ assertion opined, by the way, but I digress.

The associate conversed with Rove, who immediately brought up Roberts name (along with other legal judges and attorneys) that George W Bush wanted for federal appointments. This much is known.

Speculation: The final case was rather significant in the fact that sex offender issues had been perculating in the country for some time, and Bush wanted action that ultimately ended up in the farce known as the Adam Walsh Act. After hearing of how Roberts’ litigation essentially paved the way for Bush to proceed down the road, under the guise of the War on Terror, Bush appointed Roberts to the DC Circuit Court, the most prestigious court short of the Supreme Court, and in fact was Bush’s Supreme Court Justice in waiting.

When Sandra Day O’Conner retired, Bush initially chose Roberts to replace her, but shortly after her announcement, Chief Rehnquist died, and now Bush not only had a justice, but a CHIEF justice to replace. So he technically removed his nomination to replace O’Conner and nominated him for Chief Justice. And you know…the rest of the story.

Had he lost Smith v. Doe? Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito, a real constitutional ist. Arguably, we would have a much more stable and constitutional court.

Sex offender issues have impacted the United States and its legal, political, and soon to be a major part of its fundamental transformation . Smith v. Doe was the trigger that started this mess.

13 comments for “Was the trigger point for John Roberts’ appointment based upon Smith v Doe?

  1. Paul
    October 30, 2015 at 1:05 pm

    When a law that is passed can add new kinds of punishment to people whose crime was committed 30 or 40 years ago and they have been law abiding citizens ever since AND the law is passed under the pretense of being a regulatory/civil function, you know that something is deeply wrong. When the Supreme Court can legitimize Ex Post Facto, lawmakers have free reign to do whatever the heck they want without any checks and balances. Smith V. Doe needs to be overturned.

  2. Paul
    October 30, 2015 at 1:15 pm

    Incidentally, Smith V. Doe should scare us all. If one set of people can be punished years later without warning, it sets the bar low to apply this set of standards to any group of people. Wouldn’t you love it if your driver’s license was taken away because ten years ago you had a DUI or speeding ticket? No one would stand for it. Smith V. Doe needs to be overturned. It was enacted when the law was much less punitive than it is today. We need to get a case to the high court for reconsideration when we know they’ll be at least five sane minds on the bench. People are being screwed by this on a daily basis. We need the right case and five reasonable justices on the bench of the highest court to rectify this ongoing injustice.

    • Martin
      October 31, 2015 at 4:03 am

      I agree but how do we accomplish that? Where do we begin. Do we pursue someone like Jeffery Feiger? What kind of an attorney or law firm would we need? Can this be accomplished with money and large numbers of registrants participating? Would this be better accomplished with a small number of registrants that ultimately set legal precedent? If this effort is pragmatic, why hasn’t this been attempted before? This seems like a very expensive endeavor with a mountain of challenges. We should not have to fight this fight as the constitution should be protecting us. This is wrong on so many levels. I am willing to fight for justice.

      -found guilty of possessing 6 deleted photos of older teens 2012. Plea agreement signed under duress.
      -Not a predator but labeled as such

      • Paul
        October 31, 2015 at 5:08 pm

        Martin,

        The laws are becoming more draconian by the day. As I understand it, the “rule of four” generally applies meaning 4 of the 9 justices have to agree to hear any given case. I agree it would help when Roberts is replaced (which could be 30 years from now) but I don’t think (at least I hope) that it isn’t impossible.

    • Alan Davis
      October 31, 2015 at 8:09 am

      Yes, the case does need to be revisited, but as this article points out, it is Chief Justice John Roberts who is essentially the gatekeeper. There is virtually no chance what’s-so-ever, that Roberts is going to allow a case to come forward that would overturn the original decision, especially one he personally argued to put in place, since now this entire system of “constitutional proven legislation” can be used by the government to impose other “civil” based restrictions on more unfavored groups of citizens and include ex-post facto applications of those restrictions.

      • Paul
        October 31, 2015 at 4:52 pm

        We have to pray that in this new election cycle, the “right” candidate wins to appoint a justice that win bring about at least a 5-4 majority in our favor. It was 5-4 in the original Smith V. Doe case and things are a lot worse today than it was than. This won’t happen overnight. It might even take decades. But it needs to be overturned.

  3. Martin
    October 31, 2015 at 2:24 pm

    The absurdity of this is overwhelming. Groups like RSOL and Women Against Registry are essentially being financially bled to death by a single man holding the Chief Justice seat? How on earth did our country get to this level of depravity? They want to label us as the monsters, oft times for a single mistake, when their immoral actions destroy millions of family members and registrants lives. Our constitution is worthless. The attorneys and legal beagles have ripped it down to the individual letters of “We the people…” Changing forever and disregarding the original meaning. Maybe Costa Rica will take us. I digress…

    • Paul
      November 1, 2015 at 2:51 pm

      My sentiments exactly, Martin.

  4. kayt
    November 2, 2015 at 2:49 pm

    Interesting that Martin mentioned Costa Rica. From what I have read some have gone to other countries when they had the chance, before the no-fly list.
    Did you ever wonder WHY they want to keep RSO’s and others in the USA? Seems they’d want to toss us all out, doesn’t matter if we are RSO’s (registered citizens) or collaterals who are guilty by association. We can get out but those who create the need for us and the desire for us to leave the country are lucky to get out of our county and state much less the USA. And by the way, wasn’t it nicer (or was it?) when imigrants managed to come here from the persecution of other countries so that their families could start all over with a whole new life?
    Yes, it’s true that America was busy witch hunting not long after becoming a country but for some it was a dream come true, a new land, new purpose and new life.

  5. Stephen
    November 3, 2015 at 2:52 pm

    I hear you all talking, but I hear no Action out of any of you. Your all the reason this law has traveled so far, Big mouths and no Action.
    I’ve been to 3 government hearings on these laws, and spoke at 2 of them. I’m not afraid of the Government like you all are, I don’t make excuses, I go and speak up. Please Do the same.

    • Paul
      November 4, 2015 at 7:08 pm

      To some extent, Stephen is right. Rhode Island’s recent law extending residency restrictions was because there were not enough boots on the ground. No one saw it coming. We have to keep up with what’s going on at the committee level before it gets taken up by the senate and house. But Will is also right. Many of us are making our presence known, and not just SOSEN. Go to Derek Logue’s website if you need proof of that. RSOL. There are many activists. Government officials hear us. They just don’t care. We aren’t a popular group and lobbyists aren’t likely to take up this fight. Unfortunately our activism can’t influence the courts, which is where the greatest amount of change can come from. But legislators shouldn’t get a free pass because of the inevitability of their votes. Sometimes bills can be killed with solid argumentation and reason, especially when we can show that what they are proposing causes more harm to the general public than good, i.e. property values. They aren’t going to strike down these laws because they care about us, that I can tell you!

  6. Will Bassler
    November 3, 2015 at 6:10 pm

    Stephen I don’t believe your comment is fair many of us have put ourselves out there before government agencies and other organizations over the years I myself have been involved in this fight since the mid-1990s and I know of many other people that have gone before legislative bodies and other government agencies and spoke out and there are many people that are involved in SOSEN who do their best to counter all the lies and myths that are out there with accurate concise information all of us that are willing to speak up including yourself are having an affect look at how many articles in major newspapers and news organizations have come out in the last 2 to 3 years attacking the existence of all the rules and regulations that we fall under.

  7. Kayt
    November 4, 2015 at 6:30 pm

    Stephen, I am curious about the three times that you went to govt. meetings and the two times that you spoke up. Could you write about that? Maybe it would lead others to follow your example.

    I understand your frustration but please know that a lot of us are fighting for fair government action in ways that we can. Some of us behind the scenes.

    We are learning new truths and hopefully the problems surrounding those truths will open new pathways. The purpose of all the “talk” in these published articles is first to educate all who come to our web site and the second purpose IS a call to action.

    When we leave our questions, they are open to answers such as yours. Your answers are important and please understand that many of us are not afraid, but we are doing what we can.

    In my case most of what I am doing won’t be fruitful for awhile, but behind the scenes, neck deep in things that I do as a collateral victim of governmental stupidity, I am fighting. When they tried to destroy my life that was one thing, but they should have never hurt my son!

Comments are closed.