SCOTUS

[AndyinPA]

[Volkonski]

[raison de arizona]

https://twitter.com/kaysteiger/status/1 ... eRb3Q&s=19

@chrisgeidner: "for the first time in the nation’s history, white men will not make up the majority of its highest court”

although I'd feel a lot better if Clarence Thomas weren't part of that equation.

[Phoenix520]

More John Harwood on Graham’s pissy disrespect:

all the more remarkable for the fact that Graham was wearing a tie at a press conference earlier in the day

he took it off

Prick.

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

Awww, is Senator Graham Cracker still butthurt that his candidate didn't get chosen?

[Volkonski]

[raison de arizona]

Awww, is Senator Graham Cracker still butthurt that his candidate didn't get chosen?

Yes, he is.

Lindsey Graham right now again expressing disappointment that Biden did not nominate J. Michelle Childs to the Supreme Court. Says he could have supported her and rustled up more Republican votes.

[Kendra]

Baier: It used to be that nominees were not attacked over ideology, especially if they had the votes which clearly the Democrats did. Do regret any of the rhetoric?
McConnell: No, ideology is the point…

[Kriselda Gray]

They left Lindsey in the closet.

update from colleagues @alizaslav and @tedbarrettcnn:

Lindsey Graham didn't wear a tie for the occasion of Ketanji Brown Jackson's confirmation to become the 1st black woman on the Supreme Court

that meant he wasn't allowed on the Senate floor and voted "no" from the cloakroom

What kills me about this is that they can keep him off the floor for not wearing a tie, and apparently neither he nor anyone else raises a fuss about him being barred for a protocol violation, yet telling them to wear a mask creates a whole circus. If making you wear a tie isn't a problem, why is making you wear a mask one? They're BOTH mandates to wear something. The only difference is one is just to make sure you look spiffy and respectful while the other is in the service of potentially saving your own life or the lives of your fellow Congresspeople.

[bob]

Mitch is voting against her. My guess is she will get 50-52 votes when she should get all their votes.

50 for who and 52 for who?

50-52 votes to confirm Jackson to SCOTUS. I would be surprised if she got more than 52, and very surprised if she got less than 50.

53.

538 explains only three Republicans (Collins, Graham, and Murkowski) had voted for a majority of Biden's judicial nominees. They were the only three who had voted for Jackson when she was nominated to the D.C. Cir.

So I expected Graham to vote no; I didn't expect Romney to vote yes.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

https://ballotpedia.org/Thompson_v._Clark

Thompson v. Clark

The court reversed and remanded the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in a 6-3 ruling. The court held that it was sufficient for a plaintiff suing for unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment under the favorable termination rule to show that the prosecution ended without a conviction. Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivered the majority opinion. He wrote, "[W]e hold that a Fourth Amendment claim under §1983 for malicious prosecution does not require the plaintiff to show that the criminal prosecution ended with some affirmative indication of innocence. A plaintiff need only show that the criminal prosecution ended without a conviction." Justice Samuel Alito dissented, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.

With regard to proving exigent circumstances for a § 1983 suit, the district court noted a circuit split on the issue, but stated it was bound by the Second Circuit's precedent set out in Ruggiero v. Krzeminski that places the burden on the plaintiff in the suit. The court held that Thompson, as the plaintiff in this case, did not meet that burden and found for the defendants.[2]

The favorable termination rule was set out by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1994 case Heck v. Humphrey to guard against a § 1983 plaintiff's civil claims potentially undermining the validity of the plaintiff's criminal conviction.[5] The Supreme Court held that the § 1983 plaintiff's criminal proceeding must end in a favorable termination to the plaintiff in order for a suit to proceed, but circuit courts are split on how a favorable termination is defined. Some circuits hold that a judgment must affirmatively indicate a plaintiff's innocence—a higher standard—while others hold that the judgment simply must not be inconsistent with the plaintiff's innocence. The Second Circuit took the position in Lanning v. City of Glens Falls that a judgment must affirmatively indicate the plaintiff's innocence, and a dismissal of charges alone does not meet that burden. Accordingly, the district court found that Thompson did not meet the burden of the favorable termination rule required of § 1983 plaintiffs.[2]

In the court's majority opinion, Justice Kavanaugh wrote:
[1]To demonstrate a favorable termination of a criminal prosecution for purposes of the Fourth Amendment claim under §1983 for malicious prosecution, a plaintiff need not show that the criminal prosecution ended with some affirmative indication of innocence. A plaintiff need only show that his prosecution ended without a conviction. Thompson has satisfied that requirement here. ... Questions concerning whether a criminal defendant was wrongly charged, or whether an individual may seek redress for a wrongful prosecution, cannot reasonably depend on whether the prosecutor or court happened to explain why charges were dismissed. And requiring a plaintiff to show that his prosecution ended with an affirmative indication of innocence is not necessary to protect officers from unwarranted civil suits, as officers are still protected by the requirement that the plaintiff show the absence of probable cause and by qualified immunity.[6]

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politi ... -rcna15262

House passes bill approving Capitol statues for Ginsburg, O’Connor
The bill, which was approved in a 349-63 vote, is now headed to President Joe Biden's desk.

The House of Representatives on Monday passed legislation to build statues honoring former Supreme Court Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the Capitol.

The bill, which was approved in the Senate by unanimous consent in Dec. 2021, now heads to President Joe Biden's desk. It was approved in the House by a 349-63 vote.

The legislation requires the statues to be erected within two years of its approval and placed in a "prominent location" on Capitol grounds. It also encourages the selection of underrepresented artists to create the works.

[AndyinPA]

That's great!

[Slim Cognito]

Finally, some good news.

[raison de arizona]

More at link.

[MN-Skeptic]

[Slim Cognito]

[AndyinPA]

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/21/supreme ... -rico.html

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Congress is not required to extend a federal disability benefits program to residents of Puerto Rico.

The court ruled 8-1 that because Congress treats Puerto Rico residents differently from those residing in the states when it comes to tax laws, it can do the same when it comes to the Supplemental Income Security, or SSI, benefits program.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of the court's three liberals whose family stems from Puerto Rico, dissented.

SSI benefits are meant to offer regular financial assistance for disabled and elderly people in need. The program is available to people living in the 50 U.S. states, but not to those living in some U.S. territories.

Puerto Rican residents don't pay some federal taxes, but they do pay Social Security, which is where the disability benefits come from. This was not a 6-3 decision, so I don't quite understand the ruling. But then IANAL.

[humblescribe]

I don't know all the facts in this case, obviously. I assume that the complaint before the Supremes had to do with the way the law was written in that they felt it violated the 5A.

It might be a result of the plaintiff paying into Social Security while a resident of the 50 states, and then collecting benefits. When he moved to PR, perhaps he became ineligible to continue to receive said benefits. I am sure that the taxation rules for our territories could differ.

Many years ago, one of my clients performed some work in American Samoa. We could not file the regular 1040 with the normal attached schedules and forms. We had to carve out the income earned in American Samoa and report that on a special form (that could not be e*filed at the time.) The income taxes on that income were apportioned to the territory (they had no overall effect on the total tax liability--it was a bookkeeping sort of thing.)

Apparently, many of our territories have budgetary amounts that are derived from income generated in those territories, and Congress saw fit to segregate those funds in the treasury.

[AndyinPA]

Reading further, SSI may not come from Social Security. That might be the reason. I'll have to read more.

[sugar magnolia]

Reading further, SSI may not come from Social Security. That might be the reason. I'll have to read more.

SSI comes from the general fund. If it came from SS, people disabled at birth or childhood would never have paid in.

[AndyinPA]

Reading further, SSI may not come from Social Security. That might be the reason. I'll have to read more.

SSI comes from the general fund. If it came from SS, people disabled at birth or childhood would never have paid in.

Yeah, that's what I'm seeing. Thanks.

[raison de arizona]

Anybody remember anything getting leaked like this? Ever?

It’s impossible to overstate the earthquake this will cause inside the Court, in terms of the destruction of trust among the Justices and staff. This leak is the gravest, most unforgivable sin.

[raison de arizona]

Well that didn’t take long.

[Suranis]

Assuming someone didn't make it up from whole cloth.