pose some danger to themselves or others."). 34 Marberry, 262 Wis. 2d 720, ¶ 19 (Sykes, J., lead opinion) (emphasis added). 35 Post, 197 Wis. 2d at 328. 36 Seling v. Young, 531 U.S. 250, 265 (2001) ("Accordingly, due process requires that the conditions and duration of confinement under the Act bear some reasonable relation to the purpose for which persons are committed."); O'Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563, 575 (1975) ("[E]ven if his involuntary confinement was initially permissible, it could not constitutionally continue after that basis no longer existed."); Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715, 738 (1972) (due process requires that the nature and duration of commitment bear a reasonable relation to the purpose for which the individual is committed); Rachel, 254 Wis. 2d 215, ¶¶ 54-56 (<HOLDING>); State ex rel. Watts v. Combined Cmty. Servs.
holding that ch 980 does not violate due process because ch 980 committees have access to adequate procedures through which to seek judicial review holding that a district court grievance committees reliance on a state courts findings without holding an independent hearing did not violate the attorneys due process rights holding that substantive review is adequate holding that  1915g does not violate a prisoners right to access the courts separation of powers due process or equal protection holding that doctrine does not violate due process