We owe you nothing, you have no control

In the age of the modern president endorsing indefinite detention, whether based on perceived dangers to America, or country of origin or plain arrogance, a Supreme Court case like U.S. v. Comstock gives legitimate pause for concern.

The case is challenging the federal government's plea to allow the further incarceration of federal prisoners even after they've served their time in jail. In this case, the defendants are all sex offenders deemed "too dangerous" to be set free. While it's hard to sympathize with sex offenders that are judged unfit for freedom (by whom?), my worry is where this can lead.

The Washington Post:

A majority of Supreme Court justices seemed inclined Tuesday to accept that the federal government has the power to indefinitely hold prisoners who are deemed sexually dangerous, even if they have completed their sentences.

[...]

But (Solicitor General Elena) Kagan told the court that it is simply an extension of the federal government's recognized power "to run a responsible criminal justice system." She said that if the federal government cannot find a state willing to take responsibility for a sexually dangerous prisoner about to be released, federal officials have to step in.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg seemed to agree. "You are talking about endangering the health and safety of people," Ginsburg said. "The government has some responsibility."

Surprisingly, it was arch-conservative justice Antonin Scalia that most vigorously opposed the government's argument, though his qualms likely rested in protecting states' rights. Regardless:

Kagan's chief antagonist was Justice Antonin Scalia, who said, "There is no constitutional power on the part of the federal government to protect society from sexual predators." He rejected Kagan's argument that the federal government had a responsibility because the states were not taking on the task.

"This is a recipe for the federal government taking over everything," Scalia said. "The states won't do it, therefore we have to do it. It has to be done and therefore the federal government steps in and does it."

And this paragraph on the argument made by Kagan that a valid precedent is prisoners with communicable diseases seems alarming to me.

Others -- Justices Stephen G. Breyer and John Paul Stevens, notably -- seemed responsive to Kagan's analogy that the federal government would be within its rights to detain a soon-to-be-released prisoner who had a dangerous communicable disease.

If this is given a pass as constitutionally viable, what category of prisoner is next? What path are we choosing, if we haven't already made our decision?