Yesterday, the first story I read about the monumental U. S. Supreme Court decision (Graham v. Florida) claimed the decision was 5-4, with Justice Kennedy writing the court’s decision and Justice Thomas writing the dissenting opinion. Without reading further, I assumed this represented the usual liberal-conservative split.

Today, articles correctly called the decision 6-3, but I doubt you’ll hear any intelligent coverage of the decision beyond this. The 6 concurring were actually 3 separate opinions and the 3 dissenting were actually 2 separate opinions for a total of 5 separate opinions, not 2 (pro and con). I recommend you read the complete decision and dissenting opinions in Graham v Florida, because the case strikes at the heart of the Bill of Rights and of the entire concept of common-law juvenile justice.

On Monday, the Supreme Court also issued a monumental decision in United States v. Comstock et al. in which recent Justice nominee Elena Kagan, Solicitor General, had argued for the federal government that not only the mentally ill but also the “sexually dangerous” can be held indefinitely to protect the public. (FYI: This was the first I’ve heard that the federal government can indefinitely suspend habeas corpus rights of the mentally ill.) The Comstock decision was 7-2, comprising 2 concurring opinions and 1 dissenting opinion.

Simple math tells you that something is going on here other than all the usual suspects voting for “strict constructionism” against the majority liberal interpretation of the Constitution as “a living document.” In fact, conservative Chief Justice Roberts joined the liberal majority in both these decisions, and only Thomas and Scalia dissented in both these decisions.

The media are doing the cause of justice in this country a very, very great disservice by failing to read Supreme Court decisions carefully before they report superficially on them.

Both the decisions are written in English. Both are filled with rich detail on the issues involved. Please read them.

Of great interest to this non-lawyer, non-judicial, former juror is that both of these decisions impact the judiciary and prosecution—not the jury system. The Graham decision prevents judges from permanently depriving juveniles of their liberty and the Comstock decision permits federal prosecutors and judges to permanently deprive sex offenders of their liberty.

Here’s my concern: As long as a convict has a valid birth certificate and can prove he or she is a juvenile, the convict’s rights are protected, but as long as the federal government can find a psychologist to declare a convict to be “sexually dangerous,” the convict is screwed (of course, maybe that’s appropriate).