Citations of interest?

“The doctrine of stare decisis is essential to the respect accorded to the judgments of the Court and to the stability of the law. It is not, however, an inexorable command. Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 828 (1991) (“Stare decisis is not an inexorable command; rather, it ‘is a principle of policy and not a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision'”) (quoting Helvering v. Hallock, 309 U.S. 106, 119 (1940))). In Casey we noted that when a Court is asked to overrule a precedent recognizing a constitutional liberty interest, individual or societal reliance on the existence of that liberty cautions with particular strength against reversing course. 505 U.S., at 855-856; see also id., at 844 (“Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt”).”

I agree it is a good sign and that Republicans are usually viewed as the tough on crime party, but we most remember that both sides have been involved in passing and upholding laws that make our lives difficult.

There have already been some angry complaints from some people who felt we were leaning in a political direction that they did not agree with. I know how easy it is for tempers to flare when it comes to that. I believe that is the fastest way to divide us when we so badly need to stay together. So I hope we can make an effort to remain as neutral as possible when it comes to politics, at least until things have calmed down.

Re: “looking behind the curtain”

“WHEN RATIONALE NO LONGER WITHSTANDS CAREFUL ANALYSIS?”

This compliments the:

IRREFUTABLE/IRREBUTABLE PRESSUMPTION DOCTRINE1 (Doe-v-Snyder)

I found this 2009 LEXIS citation so deeply interesting because of the possibilities it eludes to?

Is this the genesis of reform on the judicial side?

At least from a what I think is starting to occur with Doe -v- Snyder

STARE DECISIS:

“The doctrine of stare decisis is of course ‘essential to the respect accorded to the judgements of the Court and to the stability of the law,’ but it does not compel us to follow a past decision when its rationale no longer withstands ‘careful analysis.’ – Arizona v. Gant, Case No. 07-542 (S. Ct. 4/21/09)

1″The doctrine provides that if a state denies a person or group a right based upon a particular presumption, the presumption must be universally true and there must be no reasonable alternatives available to determine the classification.  In plain language, the appellants argue that SORNA denies a person their right to reputation by presuming that a conviction for an enumerated offense means they are likely to sexually recidivate. …” (Doe -v- Snyder, U.S. 6th cir. Court of Appeals) (see also: STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ORAL ARGUMENT CASE NO. 15-2346/2486 162 pages.) (see also: INDEX OF EXHIBITS TO THE COMPLAINT 2:12-cv-11194-RHC-DRG)

If this Judge can see the evidence for what it is empirically, then whatever side they are on can lead to possible reasonable conclusions for RCs and not emotional politically charged decisions.

My opinion is that Appointed Judges tend to follow the Constitution, while elected Judges tend to cater to their voters. That is why we are more likely to see rulings in our favor when we take our cases before appointed federal judges who don’t have to worry about being voted out of their positions for doing what is right instead of what is popular. .

Fred –

The point Nick is making though is the presiding Judge is not of a party who usually sides on matters like this for those who are RCs. They usually see the other side and stay there, e.g. SCOTUS where the conservatives usually take the majority and rule with that with misguided facts. The point is important to note as there is a POTUS elect on scene and has promised to nominate conservative constitutional Judges for the bench. If you read about Judge Pryor of the 11th Circuit, who is on the list of potential nominees, you should be scared for what he thinks, feels and wants to see for the country regarding morality, etc.

Nick should be noted for his astute observation and bringing it forth, especially in a very conservative state such as NC.

Does this ruling have components that can be used to challenge IML? After all, that law is predicated on the assumption that EVERY RSO traveling abroad is likely a sex tourist or a human trafficker.

There are many registrants who are naturalized US citizens who have their wife, family overseas and as such are having issue about traveling overseas to see them. Even without the IML, the USCIS which handles immigration is denying application for family visas who live overseas for US citizens (naturalized or not).
So really the registrants who were not born here are stuck here alone.

Erika, I had my rights
Restored and was deregistered in my state of conviction, so does this mean the Alford
Plea is mute in my case ? Since the requirement was removed by operation of law, I would think that it is. I also have one more hill to climb in federal court restoring my right to military retirement, since the military inserted their prerogative to conveniently discharge just short of that maturation.
These draconian disses on people so scorn are
political exacting attempts to stay popular or surviving in the game of serious suck-up!