The judges literally prayed with the archbishop. What do you want to bet they would all be affected if they let the lookback stay in place? I bet it has nothing to do with conservatives making the news.
I hate to be on the side of sex offenders but it is literally unconstitutional in every sense based on the ex post facto clause of the US Constitution, where the government may not retroactively levy penalties or liabilities. Does it suck as applied here? Hell yeah, but arguably if they can cross this line today, what line will be crossed tomorrow? The ex post facto clause along with prohibitions on bills of attainder have a strong respected history in American Jurisprudence and arguably makeup one of the first major divisions between English and American Law (aka we fought a revolutionary war over it).
It doesn’t violate any part of ex post facto. It doesn’t increase or change the punishment of the law. It doesn’t retroactively levy penalties or liabilities. It literally just increases the length of time for a suit.
The rest of your comment is just fear mongering around something that isn’t accurate.
Not a single argument besides your is on ex post facto, it’s literally about ‘fairness’ to the people accused. None of the justices brought up ex post facto, so your point is pretty ridiculous to begin with.
This has nothing to do with me, it has to do with your argument that this is unconstitutional due to ex post facto, which is just absolutely wrong. You’re trying to shift the argument to support your viewpoint, rather than admitting you’re wrong about the law. You can easily switch your argument to “it’s not fair” like the justices have claimed. Or you can recognize that scientific progress has been made to realize that the law was never right and was never effective at doing what it said.
In regards to “dig into your history”, that’s an absolutely insane comment to make. This isn’t making something illegal that wasn’t illegal, it’s making it so that those people that did illegal things can still be prosecuted.
The judges literally prayed with the archbishop. What do you want to bet they would all be affected if they let the lookback stay in place? I bet it has nothing to do with conservatives making the news.
I hate to be on the side of sex offenders but it is literally unconstitutional in every sense based on the ex post facto clause of the US Constitution, where the government may not retroactively levy penalties or liabilities. Does it suck as applied here? Hell yeah, but arguably if they can cross this line today, what line will be crossed tomorrow? The ex post facto clause along with prohibitions on bills of attainder have a strong respected history in American Jurisprudence and arguably makeup one of the first major divisions between English and American Law (aka we fought a revolutionary war over it).
It doesn’t violate any part of ex post facto. It doesn’t increase or change the punishment of the law. It doesn’t retroactively levy penalties or liabilities. It literally just increases the length of time for a suit.
The rest of your comment is just fear mongering around something that isn’t accurate.
Smith v Doe literally already decided this argument 2 decades ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Doe
Not a single argument besides your is on ex post facto, it’s literally about ‘fairness’ to the people accused. None of the justices brought up ex post facto, so your point is pretty ridiculous to begin with.
Tyler how do you feel about statute of limitations? Or should i dig into your history to find something to find you liable against the government?
This has nothing to do with me, it has to do with your argument that this is unconstitutional due to ex post facto, which is just absolutely wrong. You’re trying to shift the argument to support your viewpoint, rather than admitting you’re wrong about the law. You can easily switch your argument to “it’s not fair” like the justices have claimed. Or you can recognize that scientific progress has been made to realize that the law was never right and was never effective at doing what it said.
In regards to “dig into your history”, that’s an absolutely insane comment to make. This isn’t making something illegal that wasn’t illegal, it’s making it so that those people that did illegal things can still be prosecuted.