Today in Supreme Court History: April 15, 1931

4/15/1931: Stromberg v. California argued.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305 (decided April 15, 1997): statute requiring candidates for state office to submit to drug test was unreasonable search under Fourth Amendment

Roberts v. United States, 445 U.S. 552 (decided April 15, 1980): defendant’s refusal to cooperate in investigation of related crime can be aggravating factor in sentencing for heroin sale

Vella v. Ford Motor Co., 421 U.S. 1 (decided April 15, 1975): A shipowner owes the duty of “maintenance and cure” of a seaman even if illness/injury due to his own negligence. Here the Court holds that this duty continues after he leaves the ship, until such time as a medical diagnosis is made that the incident caused a permanent (and hence incurable) injury.

Dixilyn Drilling Corp. v. Crescent Towing & Salvage Co., 372 U.S. 697 (decided April 15, 1963): in admiralty, can’t get indemnified for one’s own negligence (as stipulated in contract between barge owner and tower after bridge damaged by barge and bridge owner sued)

Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (decided April 15, 1935): counterfeiting conviction remanded for new trial where prosecutor’s cross-examination was abusive and judge did not stop it (the footnote giving part of the transcript contains an almost comical instance of the prosecutor twisting an answer into a threat against the prosecutor himself) (why a new trial? wouldn’t that be double jeopardy?)

St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. v. Wynne, 224 U.S. 354 (decided April 15, 1912): no Due Process where statute allowed double damages and attorney’s fees if a railroad refuses to reimburse within 30 days for killing livestock even though amount demanded turns out to be more than true value

United States v. Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Co., 553 U.S. 1 (decided April 15, 2008): one seeking reimbursement for taxes under the Tucker Act (relating to government contracts) is bound by usual requirement and deadline as to making a pre-suit administrative claim to the IRS even though Tucker Act has separate statute of limitations provision with no pre-suit claim requirement

Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (decided April 15, 1980): can’t enter a house to make an arrest without a warrant (as the Court admits, it hadn’t yet decided this issue, which is odd)

McLucas v. DeChamplain, 421 U.S. 21 (decided April 15, 1975): allowing retrial of Air Force officer to go forward despite refusal of prosecution to hand over its complete file from first trial (ironic because charge was copying classified documents and giving them to Communist contacts in Thailand)

Basham v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 372 U.S. 699 (decided April 15, 1963): reinstating New York state court verdict under federal Employers Liability Act for trainman who dropped large spring (amputating finger) when platform moved; jury credited testimony of witness who saw platform moving against testimony of railroad that platform was immovable; in dissent Harlan calls this is a run-of-the-mill case and the Court should have saved time by leaving the state appellate process alone

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305 (decided April 15, 1997): statute requiring candidates for state office to submit to drug test was unreasonable search under Fourth Amendment”

I’m not sure it’s is a case of unreasonable search to make candidates prove their qualification for the office sought. If being drug-free is one of those requirements, they could legitimately be asked to prove it.

The issue seems more like one of state law – I don’t know about Georgia but states generally list the qualifications for office in their constitutions, and if being drug-free isn’t on the list of qualifications, then drug-users would be as eligible for election as anyone else. Likewise with federal candidates – and the U. S. Constitution says nothing about Congresspeople having to be drug-free, so the people have the right to elect drug-users – if they’re into that sort of thing in their House and Senate members.

With ballot access cases in general, most states either commit

-election misinformation, by relegating certain fully-qualified candidates to the write-in line, even if they have a proper campaign committee and file the needed paperwork

or

-vote suppression, by keeping certain qualified candidates off the ballot and throwing away write-in votes cast for them.

So there’s actually an issue involved in that case, just not the issue as it was framed.

[Frank Drackman]

Right after Residency, interviewing for a job I didn't want (Mrs. Drackman's from NYC, so....)
A-hole Suit said I'd need to give a Urine sample,
Whipped it right out,
Interview was "Terminated"

Frank

[SRG]

25 years or so ago, when I was at a nameless Wall Street firm that rhymes with Gorgon Manly, I was supposed to have a urine test at one point and I asked the tester whether the firm doing the testing would compensate me in the event of an adverse employment outcome following a false positive. That was the last time I heard from them.

[David Nieporent]

Berger is most famous, and oft-quoted, for the Court's observation about prosecutors that as representatives of the government their interest "is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done," and noting about a prosecutor: "But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones."

This admonition is most honored in the breach, of course.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks

[Dr. Ed 2]

"handler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305 (decided April 15, 1997): statute requiring candidates for state office to submit to drug test was unreasonable search under Fourth Amendment"

Hmmm....
Would this apply to requirements they release tax returns?

[Dan Schiavetta]

I suppose so. If voters are stupid enough to trust a candidate who uniquely refuses to release his returns, and lies about his reason for refusing, well . . . the Constitution protects the right to be stupid.

[Mr. Bumble]

Now do medical records.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Equally. Even when (like Trump’s) falsified. Certainly requiring a medical exam would be a 4A violation.

[Mr. Bumble]

The qualifications for federal office are set by the Constitution. Barring amendment nothing else matters.
(Get treatment for TDS)

[Dan Schiavetta]

Citing objectively provable facts is not TDS. End of (this) conversation.

[Mr. Bumble]

Don't worry, the Queen will jump in.

[SRG]

IMO Captcrisis' daily post here is the best thing on the site.

[Nige]

Usually prompts the most interesting and (normally) civil exchanges, too.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Captcrisis contributes excellent content, for which I am grateful.

[Frank Drackman]

You should be grateful Pediophiles don't get Castrated (Or worse, and "Castration" is pretty bad) like they do in most of the Moose-lum Countries (OK, in "Progressive" Ear-Ron they're just hanged in pubic)

Frank

[BrotherMovesOn]

Better than dainty Mr. Bumble's daily effeminate one-sentence insults?
Get oughta here!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Captcrisis, three years ago:

Another misleading summary and decontextualized analysis.

If you read the decision you see that the “red flag” was the Soviet flag. It was not an anarchist flag. (“Anarchist” was language in the statute under which they were prosecuted.) They were considered dangerous because they were Communists, aligned with the USSR, not because they were anarchists. It makes a difference.

I sense it was irritation precipitated by the weaknesses of Today In Supreme Court History that prompted captcrisis to develop and operate a better mousetrap.

[David Nieporent]

Nah. Captcrisis is wrong here. He's interpreting this anachronistically. There was no bright line distinction seen between anarchism/socialism/communism, and the terms were often used interchangeably.

[Dan Schiavetta]

You are correct as usual. About me having been wrong, that is.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Here’s another example of judicial ethics (or, more accurate, lack of them) the Volokh Conspiracy will be disinclined to acknowledge or address, focusing instead, as has become customary, on a steady stream of posts involving drag queens, transgender sorority disputes, Muslims, transgender parenting issues, lesbians, transgender bathrooms, white male grievance, and similar issues that attract myopic focus from some bloggers.

Why do the most strenuous followers of Jesus Christ seem to have such difficulty with honesty, accountability, and transparency. Does the Bible establish a divine obligation to lie in service of old-timey bigotry?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Why not follow out the logic of your bigotry? Replace “Matthew Kacsmaryk” with “Harvey Weinstein” and “Bible” with “Talmud.”

Or invoke Stalin's atheism.

That would make you totally edgy.

[Gandydancer]

Out from behind the paywall: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-controversial-article-matthew-kacsmaryk-did-not-disclose-to-the-senate/ar-AA19U4mY

The allegation is that Kacsmaryk-evaded a requirement that he list his published works by removing his name from an article before it was published.

So he snuck up on the Democrats, who couldn’t otherwise figure out how objectionable to them his views were.

Because they and their staffs and co-religionists are each and every one as stupid as a box of rocks, apparently.

The connection between political maneuver and judicial ethics eludes me, but Artie is convinced that Justice Thomas selling a house to someone with no cases ever before SCOTUS is a breach of judicial ethics too, so you have to consider the source of his claim: A fevered, partisan, low-amperage, low-functioning make-do of a brain-substitute.

[David Nieporent]

So he snuck up on the Democrats, who couldn’t otherwise figure out how objectionable to them his views were.

"You fucked up; you trusted us" is a funny quote but not a system of ethics.

The connection between political maneuver and judicial ethics eludes me,

Many things do.

Justice Thomas selling a house to someone with no cases ever before SCOTUS is a breach of judicial ethics too,

It is not. But illegally failing to disclose it is.

[Gandydancer]

1) The Democrats didn’t “trust” Kacsmaryk. Even assuming he didn’t have any other reason to list other colleagues at his legal group, First Liberty Institute, as the authors and took his name off it solely to avoid giving the (D)’s a tool to arouse their base, so what? As I said, political maneuver is not a judicial ethics violation. He’s not required to change the definition of “his published works” to take credit for works on which he merely collaborated. As I assume are many publications authored by First Liberty Institute.

2) Sez you. Too bad you can’t come up with an actual example.

3) Illegally failing to disclose the sale might have been a judicial ethics violation... IF it were illegal. But it wasn’t illegal so it wasn’t a judicial ethics violation,

None of the above points involves telling you anything you don’t already know. You are nearly as tedious a shit as Artie.

[David Nieporent]

Even assuming he didn’t have any other reason to list other colleagues at his legal group, First Liberty Institute, as the authors and took his name off it solely to avoid giving the (D)’s a tool to arouse their base, so what?

Yes, I understand that — as with Bob from Ohio — lying does not bother you if it helps your political allies. "So what" is that if the facts were as reported — and the counterexplanations given by Kacsmaryk and his allies are laugh out loud absurd — then (a) it was a lie; and (b) lying on such a submission is a felony.

And of course the "It didn't matter if he lied about authoring the article because they already knew his views" raises the obvious question: if it didn't matter then why did he lie about it? The only logical explanation is that he did think it mattered.

3) Illegally failing to disclose the sale might have been a judicial ethics violation… IF it were illegal. But it wasn’t illegal so it wasn’t a judicial ethics violation,

No, it was illegal. These disclosures are required by law.

[Gandydancer]

I have suggested that First Liberty Institute, which is effectively an ideological legal think tank, publishes collegial work, and the the term “your published work” either includes for Kacsmaryk virtually everything written under its aegis or, alternatively, only those things with Kacsmaryk’s name on them. Using the latter definition for his list is not a “lie”, merely a reasonable choice as to how to interpret the instructions.

The (D) committee members knew of Kacsmaryk’s relationship with First Liberty Institute and were free to ask him if he agreed or disagreed with any statement in any associated publication.

[David Nieporent]

You have suggested a defense that not even Kacsmaryk himself offered, and that nobody including you believes. The piece was submitted with Kacsmaryk's name, and only Kacsmaryk's name. Everyone including you knows that this means that Kacsmaryk was holding himself forth as the author.

Kacsmaryk, and only Kacsmaryk, corresponded with the law review regarding the piece, including changes to the piece. Everyone, including you, knows that this is because Kacsmaryk was the author.

Everyone including you knows that the just-released "explanation" that his name was used as a "placeholder" for the actual authors is not true, because nobody at any law review ever has ever heard of such a thing, and there would of course have been no reason to do such a thing.

Everyone including you knows that when he secretly contacted them after he found out he was being nominated and asked them to change the name on the piece for a nudge nudge wink wink reason "that would become clear in the future," that he was asking them to lie because he thought it would hurt his nomination.

Using the latter definition for his list is not a “lie”, merely a reasonable choice as to how to interpret the instructions.

No; it's a lie. The purpose of the question on the questionnaire is not so that librarians can update their card catalogs by compiling all the publications attributed to the person. The purpose of the question on the questionnaire, like all other questions on the questionnaire, is so that the committee members can evaluate the nominee based on his past work. If he wrote it, the fact that he asked someone else to take credit for it would no more make a denial of his authorship truthful than the fact that he published it under a pseudonym would.

[Gandydancer]

"Everyone, including you, knows that this is because Kacsmaryk was the author."

You "know" all sorts of shit that isn't in evidence. But I don't in fact know the work process that went into each of the many different "First Liberty Institute"-associated articles, or how it gets finally decided whose name on is published under. The request that Kacsmaryk list any “books, articles, reports, letters to the editor, editorial pieces, or other published material you have written or edited” did in fact allow Kacsmaryk to interpret its terms, particularly "edited", in various ways. If his name were on the article he would have to list it, or explain the oddity of omitting it, but he didn't have to list opinions that he essentially wrote as a judge's clerk even if he wrote and/or edited them, IMO.

As I said, he was available for questioning about the piece in question in the committee members wanted to question him about it, and his association with it may not have been known in detail at the time but they could have clarified that. That he was generally on board with what was said in First Liberty Institute-associated publications was no secret.

[David Nieporent]

But I don’t in fact know the work process that went into each of the many different “First Liberty Institute”-associated articles, or how it gets finally decided whose name on is published under.

It is not a "First Liberty Institute associated article," you dishonest p.o.s. It has no "association" with the First Liberty Institute. And it "gets finally decided" that the person who wrote it is the name it is published under, because that's how law reviews work.

As I said, he was available for questioning about the piece in question in the committee members wanted to question him about it,

Priceless. Yes, he was perfectly available for questioning about it… if he hadn't lied to conceal the fact that the piece existed, so that nobody knew to question him about it. Should they have asked him about all the other publications in the United States from the year 2017 that his name wasn't on, too, just in case he had written them and then lied about it?

That he was generally on board with what was said in First Liberty Institute-associated publications was no secret.

It's also no secret that you are utterly full of shit. This wasn't a "First Liberty Institute-associated publication." It was an article in a law review published by the University of Texas. Not an organizational newsletter. Nothing about it suggested it had anything to do with the organization or Kacsmaryk. Nobody had any reason to even notice it, let alone ask him about it.

[not guilty]

"Illegally failing to disclose the sale might have been a judicial ethics violation… IF it were illegal. But it wasn’t illegal so it wasn’t a judicial ethics violation"

Wrong. Failure to file or filing a false report is actually criminalized by 5 U.S.C. § 13106(a)(2). (The penalties are minor.)

[Gandydancer]

I'd already retracted my claim that Thomas was not required by law to report any capital gain over $200. See above.

[not guilty]

You have not acknowledged that failure to report or filing of a false report is a criminal offense..

[The Margrave of Azilia]

[comment moved]

[DIsrobing]

Today in Supreme Court history it was revealed that Justice Clarence Thomas has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts from a billionaire who funds various think tanks that regularly are involved in cases before the Supreme Court.

The billionaire also purchased Thomas's mom's house and Thomas did not report the transaction in violation of Federal law.

The outrage is deafening.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Remember the story about the little boy who cried “wolf”?

The left has been going after Thomas for 30 years now — and no one cares anymore. He could be taking bribes for votes on the court and no one would care at this point.

[Frank Drackman]

Dr. Ed, are you vying to become the next Jimmuh Cartuh? Who is always on the wrong side of everything? (OK, hard to find anything good about the Guinea Worms, but if JC is against them.....)
Yes, Nobody Cares, like Nobody cared about Milhouse, William Juffuhson getting a Monica in the Oval Orifice, AlGore diddling his Housekeeper (Tipper cared),
until they do care, and he's an "Uncle Tom" they've been gunning for since 1991, and they'd love to replace him with one of those Nappy-Haided Tennesse boys,

I'm almost hoping Diane "Not So" Fine-Stein hangs on to the bitter end...

Frank

[BrotherMovesOn]

Well, "you" wouldn't care, but you're a mentally-checked out retiree without a life.
Post another 300 word primer on railroad car coupling technology that no one asked for.

[Frank Drackman]

"high 5" (No Homo) , what you said!
OK, got a little of the Ass-burgers myself, I can go on for hours (maybe 5 minutes but it feels like 5 hours) on the failure of Methoxyflurane ("your wisdom teeth extraction was a success, unfortunately, now you need a Kidney) Differences in adverse yaw between the FA-18C/FA-18D, and rating the best Braves teams from 1991-2005 (1996 the best, until......)

Frank

[Gandydancer]

@TheBrotherNobodyWantsToHave: You need never worry about being accused of having “checked out” since, mentally, you’ve never checked in, at least as demonstrated by any post seen here.

[Frank Drackman]

Oh yeah? "King's Indian" opinions? Good? Bad? and without Plaguerizing from AlGores Internets (Did AlGore invent everything?)
Oh, you're not familiar with Chess? Most Amuricans aren't because it requires patience, dee-cee-pleen? (HT Ah-nold) and even then somebody better will kick your ass,

and since I can see a few moves ahead,
You (dumbasses) DO know this whole "National Guard Spy" is just to provide cover for the Ukrainian defeat thats coming??

Frank

[Gandydancer]

I was in Chess Club… in Jr High School. So “King’s Indian” is a vaguely familiar name, but I gave chess up precisely because I wasn’t much interested in memorizing openings. Got into Avalon Hill type wargames (etc.) instead.

I’m finding the contents of the leaker’s documents hard to turn up. Carlson said they showed a 7:1 Ukrainian:Russian loss ratio, but I’m finding that as hard to credit as the more usual pro-Ukrainian triumphalism. IMO it should be no more than about 1.3:1 either way, given the lack of large prisoner hauls (see, e.g., Kiev 1941) to demonstrate battlefield dominance.

[Gandydancer]

"You (dumbasses) DO know this whole “National Guard Spy” [story?] is just to provide cover for the Ukrainian defeat thats(sic) coming??"

No, I don't. I can't see any way that a Ukrainian defeat can be blamed on the Jack Teixeira leak.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Did I force you to read it?

Memory is that I was pointing out that it wasn't that the cars were on a siding but that they weren't used in interstate commerce.

[Nige]

Well some people are trying very hard not to care. A $5 donation by Soros? Oooh, that's a whole other story.

[David Nieporent]

The left has been going after Thomas for 30 years now — and no one cares anymore. He could be taking bribes for votes on the court and no one would care at this point.

Um, even if your underlying premise were correct, the left is many people, so many people care.

[Gandydancer]

"The billionaire also purchased Thomas’s mom’s house and Thomas did not report the transaction in violation of Federal law."

He was obliged to report it to the IRS and presumably did so. He was not obliged to report it to you.

The idea that because Crow donates to think tanks among other things that that somehow makes him a party to cases before SCOTUS is bizarre. The personal hospitality exception would hardly ever apply if it excluded, say, anyone who donated to a political party or other pressure group.

[Frank Drackman]

What you said, and because I-ANAL,
so there's not anything, let me say it again, ANYTHING, again "ANYTHING" Hunter Biden's done in the last few years that warrants an Investigation??
I mean if we're indicting former POTUS's for paying for NDA's, how about a POTUS's son committing the felony of Perjury on a BATFE Form 4473 (Real Felony that Peoples go to jail for)

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

Was there, umm "Somebody" who decided not to prosecute the Felony? Who probably would have prosecuted it if it was Donald Jr., Eric Trump, Steve Banyon, Steve Miller, Clarence Thomas,??

OK, and it's not a crime, but fucking your dead Brothers Wife is umm,
what's the word for it??
Yes, she's hot as fuck, I get it,
Frank

[David Nieporent]

He was obliged to report it to the IRS and presumably did so. He was not obliged to report it to you.

False, you pathetic hack.

[Gandydancer]

True... and if it weren't true you'd be able to show your work.
But you can't because you haven't done any, you tedious shit.

[David Nieporent]

False, you pathetic hack.

In fact, doubly false. It's false that he's not required to report it, and it's false that I "can't" show my work, because I already did hours ago in another thread.

5 U.S.C. § 13104(a)(1)(B) and (a)(5)(A), you sad person who likes to pretend to engage in legal analysis but is incompetent at it.

[Bob from Ohio]

"He was not obliged to report it to you."

It should have been on his financial disclosure for that year but its routine to file amended forms later. Despite the caterwauling here and elsewhere, that is what is going to happen. He will file an amendment and nothing else will happen.

[Gandydancer]

Nope. The purchase took place in 2014. Any "amended form" would be quite tardy.

It was simply not a reportable event.

Except to the IRS.

[Gandydancer]

OK, I’ve looked into this further. The “Wolf!”-crying over Thomas’ guesting for Crow didn’t encourage me to take this story any more seriously, but if the law is valid then Thomas would appear to have violated it, as he is indeed a covered “judicial officer” and the law does require reporting any capital gains transactions over $1000. The properties seem to have been owned by his grandfather and divided three ways long enough ago so that his capital gain ought to have been not much less than 1/3 of $133k, presumably less the tear-down cost of former houses on two of the lots. On the other hand, unless he’s impeached I doubt if he can be penalized in any way. And any future SCOTUS declarations won’t, I think, be enforceable against him, SCOTUS not having the official power to lay down any law.

[David Nieporent]

OK, I’ve looked into this further. The “Wolf!”-crying over Thomas’ guesting for Crow didn’t encourage me to take this story any more seriously, but if the law is valid then Thomas would appear to have violated it,

I mean, that's a weird way of phrasing, "Yes, I am a pathetic lying hack," but I guess it's the closest we'll ever get to an apology from you.

Although you still can't get it right, because it's not just "capital gains" that are at issue. The law requires reporting of all transactions over $1,000 relating to real property (other than one's involving one's personal residence), regardless of whether there is a gain or loss.

[Gandydancer]

In this case it IS a capital gain and the law in question refers specifically in the relevant provision to capital gains, you pathetic ignorant hack.

I’m not apologizing for anything. I explained TO BOB that you partisan shits completely discredited yourself with all you “Wolf!” calling when there was and is no wolf and you have no one to blame but yourself when you are ignored.

And there’s still no ethical violation, just a reporting omission. Crow is still someone who’s never been a party to any suit before the Court. If he wants to spend money being Thomas’ patron, including turning the house Thomas grew up in into a museum, there’s still no conflict of interest or any legal prohibition on his doing so.

[Sarcastr0]

Nope.

You're lying.

You would bend over backwards to deny and do whatever for Thomas no matter what. Past history has nothing to do with it.

You've shown us what you are, repeatedly. You've never had any real shame or sign of anything like a brain before, just name calling. Everyone knows. No need to pathetically try and excuse it.

[Gandydancer]

"Nope"

Yes. Ewery word I said is true.

"You're lying."

When I said what?

"You would bend over backwards to deny and do whatever for Thomas no matter what. Past history has nothing to do with it."

Past history of what has nothing to do with what?

"You’ve shown us ..." (Followed by a string of turds.)

Why are you so incapable of making any actual argument for or against anything, you slimy shit?

[Mr. Bumble]

Special rules for SarcastrO:
1. SarcastrO is always right.
2. If SarcastrO is wrong see rule #1.

[David Nieporent]

“You’re lying.”

When I said what?

Do you not even read your own comments?

"It was simply not a reportable event.

Except to the IRS."

[Gandydancer]

Except that the “You’re lying” claim didn’t come in response to the post where I'd said, “It was simply not a reportable event”, a mistake I’d already corrected.

If you feel that reading my comments will provide a clear answer to the question “Past history of what has nothing to do with what?” feel free to point out how. It’s quite odd how you two think incoherent snot-dripping bile is a good substitute for direct answers. Really, it just wastes time.

[David Nieporent]

In this case it IS a capital gain and the law in question refers specifically in the relevant provision to capital gains, you pathetic ignorant hack.

It doesn't matter whether it's a capital gain. Yes, capital gains must be disclosed. So must all other real estate transactions, subject to the inapplicable exceptions I mentioned above. Repeatedly focusing only on that one thing — and then handwaving it away because the gain might not have been very big — simply shows you continuing to incompetently pettifog the situation.

I’m not apologizing for anything

Um, duh; I know. That's the problem. You have no ethical sense yourself. You keep trying to blame other people for your lies and idiocies. ("I didn't bother to research X before I claimed that it wasn't true because I don't like the politics of the people saying X" is not a reasonable statement.)

And there’s still no ethical violation, just a reporting omission.

I'd say that a judge committing a felony is an ethical violation. Obviously your standards differ.

If he wants to spend money being Thomas’ patron, including turning the house Thomas grew up in into a museum, there’s still no conflict of interest or any legal prohibition on his doing so.

Not by Crow. But we're talking about Thomas.

[Gandydancer]

There's no conflict of interest for Thomas in any of his interactions with Crow. I can't quite fathom why you would imagine that I was speaking about Crow's legal obligations or COI.

The reason I didn't bother researching the claim that Thomas was obliged to report a capital gain is not the "politics" of those saying so but their history of lying about the illegality of Thomas accepting hospitality from Crow.

""...a judge committing a felony is an ethical violation."

There you go again. Why WOULD anyone take anything you say seriously?

Nobody forced me to tell Bob that I'd changed my mind on that point. When I did I said it promptly.

[David Nieporent]

Lying on a disclosure form is a felony.

[not guilty]

5 U.S.C. § 13104(a)(5) requires:

. . . a brief description, the date, and category of value of any purchase, sale or exchange during the preceding calendar year which exceeds $1,000—
(A)in real property, other than property used solely as a personal residence of the reporting individual or the individual’s spouse

No mention of capital gains.

[Gandydancer]

From the statute you mention:

(B)Dividends, rents, interest, and capital gains.—The source and type of income which consists of dividends, rents, interest, and capital gains, received during the preceding calendar year which exceeds $200 in amount or value, and an indication of which of the following categories the amount or value of such item of income is within— (i)not more than $1,000; (ii)greater than $1,000 but not more than $2,500; [etc]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/13104
I'll look again to see why there seems to be duplicative content, but may not bother reporting back if I don't clear that up in the 5 minute window for editing this.

[Gandydancer]

Hmmm… looks like your section is more specifically related to real estate transactions than the one earlier in the statute. And it covers gross transaction size rather than profit. So I guess if Thomas had listed his third of the $133k sale there he wouldn’t have had to report his capital gain?

Thomas went from listing his 1/3 ownership to not listing it, so anyone auditing his reports would have cause to ask why that happened.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Does anyone know whether there are enough disaffected right-wing clingers among the relevant disciplinary authorities’ decisionmakers to prevent accountability for Clarence Thomas?

[not guilty]

Clarence Thomas has been a scofflaw regarding financial disclosures for years. The failure to disclose the recently uncovered real estate transaction is a misdemeanor under 5 U.S.C. § 13106(a)(2). The serial filing prior to 2011 of financial disclosure forms that falsely stated that Virginia Thomas had no income was felonious according to 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(3).

Justice Thomas should be exceedingly grateful for the statute of limitations.

[Gandydancer]

“The serial filing prior to 2011 of financial disclosure forms that falsely stated that Virginia Thomas had no income was felonious according to 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(3).”

“Feloniopus” certtainly sounds very serious. But… from the statute: “A statement is “material” if it has a natural tendency to influence or to be capable of influencing the decision of the decisionmaker to which it was addressed, regardless of whether the agency actually relied upon it.”

What “decision” are you suggesting was influenced by the misreporting of Mrs. Thomas’ income?

This omission has been known since when?

[David Nieporent]

No decision need actually be influenced to satisfy the materiality standard of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. That might be a better rule, but it is not the law. Which is why one can be convicted of lying to a federal employee even when the employee knows one is lying and never relies on the statement at all.

[not guilty]

No, the statute does not define materiality. Did you read the statute before falsely claiming that it does?

To be material under § 1001, a statement must have "a natural tendency to influence, or be capable of influencing, the decision of the decisionmaking body to which it was addressed." United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 509 (1995), quoting Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759, 770 (1988). The financial disclosure is germane to whether a Supreme Court justice's impartiality might reasonably be questioned. If so, recusal is required by 28 U.S.C. § 455 (another statute which Justice Thomas conspicuously flouts).

[Mr. Bumble]

Not that it needs an explanation, but left the reply window open while attending to something else and hit submit when I returned.
Pathetic is your attempt at gotcha.

[Gandydancer]

You, too, alleged that Trump's medical records were falsified? Where?

[Dan Schiavetta]

There’s a reason those front bumpers were shaped like that and called “cow catchers”. Garrison Keillor did a bit about that in his fake-memoir piece “My North Dakota Railroad Days”.

[SRG]

FWIW there are tons of 19thC English railway tort cases dealing with animals being startled by trains.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I think that part of the issue was that state courts weren't always very friendly to the railroads -- what happened here is he put in a claim for $500 when the two dead horses were only worth $400 and the railroad refused to pay it. (No mention of if they offered to pay $400.)

He then sued for $400, won in state court, and got the award of double damages, i.e. $800, which was upheld upon appeal to the state supreme court.

What SCOTUS appears to have said is that since he made an excessive claim to the railroad, it was a violation of due process to penalize the railroad for refusing to pay it.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/224/354

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Garrison Keillor did a bit about that in his fake-memoir piece “My North Dakota Railroad Days”."

Whatever happened to him, anyway?

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Startled" is not the word -- animals are terrified of fire and the locomotive belching wood smoke (which they could smell) and shooting sparks up the stack (which they could both see & hear) -- the animals sought to flee...

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's Clinton & Biden who have something medical to hide. Clinton allegedly has a bent penis, and Biden -- well....

[Dan Schiavetta]

thanks -- I didn't know that

If rhinoceroses (who are attracted to fires and stamp them out -- see "The Gods Must Be Crazy") had been native to England, it would have changed case law quite a bit.

[SRG]

It's amazing how well justices can read minds (whether judge, defendant, or jury) when it comes to ruling against an appellant.

[Dan Schiavetta]

He still does shows. My son and I are going to see him in a few weeks.

He also posts on his blog every week or so.

A great writer. “Lake Wobegon Days” is a masterpiece. Amazing how he gets into the heads of such a diverse bunch of characters in what to outsiders might seem like a bland American whiteland.

As far as the recent stuff, it seems to me either innocent (by comparison) or cooked up.

[David Nieporent]

He was a #MeToo target, as I recall.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Startled sounds like English understatement. Translated into American, it would be "scared shitless."

[Dr. Ed 2]

Some towns actually built new roads to enable people to avoid driving their carriages alongside the railroad tracks. As roadbuilding involved significant labor back then, particularly when it involved going up & over hills as opposed to following the level land that the existing road and tracks followed, this must have been a serious problem.

[Mr. Bumble]

One of the best examples of dissembling, obfuscation and projection you're likely to see today.

[Gandydancer]

The qualifications for President are in the Constitution and no not allow for disqualification on other grounds by some government toady.

I don’t want Trump back but, unlike you, I am not moved to invent methods to deny the people who do the opportunity to elect him.

[Dan Schiavetta]

To this day the only round sign is the railroad crossing sign. It’s meant to grab the eye due to the unique danger.

Also I think of it as a mark of respect for the rail’s seniority. Trains were around for a long time before cars came along.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Also I think of it as a mark of respect for the rail’s seniority."
Guess there were no wheeled vehicles before rail roads.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Actually the round sign is relatively new -- initially the only sign was the "crossbuck" -- the sideways "X" that says "Rail Road Crossing."
Those are still there -- the round signs are a hundred feet out or so.

And the flashing red lights -- those were to duplicate a man waving a lit red lantern. Crossing gates used to be cranked by hand and had kerosene lanterns on them.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

*If* abstinence from illicit drugs were a qualification for office (and I don't know of any constitution in this country which says so), then I think proof of qualification could be required, just like proof of age, residency, etc.

I don't think it's a relevant issue because, as I say, I don't know of any American jurisdiction where (unconvicted) drug behavior is a disqualification for office under the fundamental law

[The Margrave of Azilia]

As I say, I don’t think it’s relevant because I don’t think there is any *constitutional* provision making drug-free status a qualification for office.

I see that Georgia write-in candidates need only submit a fee and paperwork. If they don’t do this, write-in votes for them will be thrown in the trash. Write-in votes for any qualified person (candidate or not) ought to be counted if they’re not on the ballot.

If they *do* file the proper paperwork, and fees, there’s no legitimate reason to exclude qualified people from the ballot. Failing to list all candidates on the ballot is election misinformation.

Of course, even without the drug test, Georgia still perpetuates election misinformtion by failing to list all candidates on the ballot.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The question is whether the search is reasonable. I think it would be reasonable if drug-free status was a *constitutional qualification for office,* but it’s not so it’s a purely abstract question.

Like I said, it’s election misinformation to keep a qualified candidate off the ballot and relegate them to write-in status (except for paying a reasonable “adversising” fee for the showing of their name and probably giving paperwork with minimal information). But Georgia indeed engages in election misinformation on third-party candidates way beyond the drug question.

So this is straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

This whole case *is* about ballot access, but they’re approaching it wrong.

I know the Supreme Court has disavowed ability to enforce the Republican Form of Government clause, but election misinformation *on the ballot itself* is hard to reconcile with a republican form of government.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

No, it just means they didn't pay for "advertising space." And they can get out of that with a pauper's affidavit.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Yeah, two questions.

I hope my point was clear enough not to need repeating.

[Frank Drackman]

Why don't you have any useful information? like who killed JFK (of course, Lee Harvey O, it's a metaphor)

[Dan Schiavetta]

I do remember the wig-wag and also I saw a man cranking open the gate once. Around 1963 or so it would have been.

[Frank Drackman]

Deaf to what? OK, and I know you're going to have some biting rejoinder about niggers fucking my mom,

[Frank Drackman]

"Winston Wolf" the guy who "Solves Problems"
that'd be cool as shit, I'd even get him some coffee

Frank

[Gandydancer]

You’re still at the Crying Wolf When There’s No Sign of a Wolf stage.

And, no, Crying Wolf does NOT indicate that a wolf will eventually show up, any more than you can rely on digging into horseshit to eventually produce a pony. Thirty years of your failure teaches most of us something even if Lefty is immune to learning from that experience.

[Frank Drackman]

Internet Tough Guy!!
Like Parkinson Joe, who can barely stand up, but would "Beat the hell out of" "45" (I'd pay to see that fight, Parkinson J comes out, pounds the Gloves, falls over, "Roman Reigns" comes in as a "Proxy" for "45" ("Heel Spur, has Notarized Medical Excuse) puts Parkinson Joe into a "Sleeper Hold" (How would they know?)

Seriously, my mom took care of Afro-Amuricans, burned in Veet-nam (HT JFK/LBJ) how many you "take care of" (OK, I don't want to know)

Frank "Mom's calling"

[Frank Drackman]

Yes, My mom Breast-Fed me (it's what they did in the Former E. Germany) and she liked me "As a Friend"(HT R. Dangerfield)
And didn't get me started talking good Engrish until I was 4, so you're good with ridiculing ESL peoples??
And taught me to read German/Engrish before Kindergarten (was so confusing when I went and there was no Garden? just rows of Schreibtische) And how to throw a Curve, Changeup, "Slide Step" Pickoff move (in 1974 it was referred to as a "Balk") hit a Topspin Serve,
OK, Dad, he flew B52s, he was busy dropping death and destruction on the Zipperheads,
yeah, she wasn't your typical Negress, 13 kids, 11 Fathers, Crack, and if she loses her Metformin Rx the Market falls 500 points,
Seriously, do you even know who your "Baby Daddy" (Did I use that correctly?? is it "Baby Daddy" I'm trying to ask if you know who your Father (Nigger for "Daddy") is...

Frank "Loves MLK Jr, especially that he's not around anymore"

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I guess I'll have to repeat myself:

"*If* abstinence from illicit drugs were a qualification for office (and I don’t know of any constitution in this country which says so), then I think proof of qualification could be required, just like proof of age, residency, etc."

[The Margrave of Azilia]

There’s three candidates: Tweedledee, Tweedledum, and Bartkiewicz. The ballot says:

Vote for One:

Tweedledum __

Tweedledee __

Write-in _________

Or why not make the ballot even less cluttered?

Vote for one:

Tweedledum __

Write-in ______________

[The Margrave of Azilia]

No difference if you ignore intent and context.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Seriously?

When the intent is to maintain duopoly control by minimizing the non-duopoly candidates, then that seems a bit different from reasonable fees for the advertising space on the ballot.

But you said “I’m all for more ballot access” – what reforms, and are they constitutionally required, or just an optional luxury?

(Incidentally, if I *have* to give up the fees for the sake of "a foolish consistency," then so be it, it's better to shift the discussion to duopoly preferences without all this "gosh I don't see the difference between duopolist discrimination and a fee.")

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“And how would this intent that a filing fee and a filing deadline requirement is to “preserve a duopoly” be shown?”

No, I’ve explained about filing fees, and it's' tiresome to point out your straw-manning.

Now see if you can justify keeping candidates off the ballot because they didn’t find a bunch of people to sign petitions for the candidate or his party.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"(like if one were omitted for not meeting, say, residency requirements it wouldn’t be “misinformation.”)"

Which I didn't say, residency being a qualification for office, and listing an unqualified person on the ballot would itself be misinformation.

You seem to agree with me on substance but not terminology. But it's letting the duopoly off too lightly to deny they're trying to misinform the voters and steer them to duopoly candidates.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Filing deadlines are inevitable for ballot access, just make them nondiscriminatory.

Most reformers have settled for the *concept* of petition signatures, but want them at a minimum.

Of course, there's a difference between the *ideal* petition signature laws of the reformers and the *actual* laws on petition signatures.

I think the time for voters to express their views on third parties is during the elections when they can mark their *secret* ballots, not before the elections when they're supposed to sign forms for a party.

And in the modern age, as we see in North Carolina, petition signatories can be harassed in their homes by duopoly operatives, so if the ballot leaves off a third-party candidate's name it may simply mean he couldn't find enough voters willinng to risk reprisals for an unpopular person or party.

Third parties and independents should meet the same conditions of ballot access, and I mean in reality, not in the Anatole France sense of "*all* parties have to show in advance of election that they have thousands of supporters."

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You can’t keep demanding I answer your questions while refusing to answer mine.

I asked if equal ballot access laws are a constitutional requirement or merely a luxury.

What do you say?

(Also, I'm not sure if I have the energy to keep pointing out your straw-manning.)

[Brett Bellmore]

"And how would this intent that a filing fee and a filing deadline requirement is to “preserve a duopoly” be shown?"

That's easy: Just look at what happens if either requirement isn't met. Typically? If you're a third party candidate, that's it, forget being on the ballot. If you're a major party candidate, they waive the requirement.

Anybody with experience in 3rd party politics knows that's the way it works.

[Frank Drackman]

That's actually correct.
And (Theoretically of course)
if it was 1803 and we had to fight a Duel "Hamilton" style,
because you insinuated that my mom fucked niggers,
which weapons would you chose? You're the Challenged party, you get to pick,
Pistols? Daggers? Rapiers??
I'm thinking "Swords"
One word of warning, I Cheat (only "Cheating" if you get caught, see Astros, Houston)

Frank

[Gandydancer]

Yes, I disagree. Such personal "requirements" are flapdoodle. Should Trump meet one and Biden not do so your "requirement" would evaporate.

As to legal requirements for financial disclosure by candidates and campaigns, those are, AFAIK, not personal. If weaponized into a qualification for office they would be unconstitutional, IMO.

As to a law making tax returns public Congress can make all sorts of bad policy into law, but there is no power akin to the Income Tax Amendment giving the government any power to force you to see a government-approved doctor.

[Gandydancer]

I don’t (and didn’t) deny when my information is incomplete, but the power of the FERC to compel the filing of personal information is non-obvious to me. If Trump had told them to take a flying leap what do they purport to be the downside of that? Withholding matching funds? Holding back an incentive is not the power to compel (though the can shade into the other).

Relatedly, I believe you don’t HAVE to file a tax return, though there is a failure to file financial penalty and the IRS’ calculation of your taxes may not be as favorable to you as yours, requiring you to contest it to get a better result. And you may be able to avoid the penalty by filing a blank return and telling the IRS to fill it out. I'm not sure.

[David Nieporent]

Relatedly, I believe you don’t HAVE to file a tax return,

Oh, come on. This must be a put up job, right? Are we being punked here?

Gandydancer pretends to know the law, and doesn't know something that even the most semi-literate 12 year old knows?

Yes, you do HAVE to file a tax return, assuming you have income above the minimum threshold.

[Gandydancer]

"Gandydancer pretends to know the law..."

Actually I quite explicitly said that I was uncertain of certain aspects of the law.

And I didn't say that failing to file a tax return was without consequences. I said the opposite.

You're a jackass idiot ignoramus incapable of making distinctions, Nopoint. Shut your stupid trap.

[David Nieporent]

And I didn’t say that failing to file a tax return was without consequences. I said the opposite.

"I'm not sure whether murder is illegal. Yeah, there might be consequences, but you're allowed to do it."

No, it's a crime, you imbecile. The 'consequences' include a criminal sentence, criminal fines, and jail time.

[Gandydancer]

@Queenie: Is your comment supposed to be relevant to anything I said?

[Gandydancer]

Leftys are Soooo Stupid.

The point of the story is not that the boy why cried “Wolf!” was a perceptive anticipator of future events.

No, that is NOT “the way the story goes”.

[SRG]

Well, motorised trains were in use before the widespread use of motor-cars.

[SRG]

Perhaps he confused lambic with limp dick.

[Gandydancer]

Indeed I do, and I also see how useful they are to those who make inapt ones in order to substitute them for actual assertions that can be refuted.

Again, if you have a point about something I actually said, spit it out.

Hint: Start by quoting me. Then make an actual counterargument.

[Gandydancer]

No ethical standard was violated by Thomas in accepting Corn's admiration and patronage because there was never any conflict of interest between Corn's interests and Thomas' duties on the bench.

You really struggle with the idea that "f professional standards and ethics" are not violated by disagreement with you, but that is no one's problem except yours.

[Gandydancer]

But I never made that argument. YOU are the one who implied (“You know at the end of that story a wolf shows up, right?”) that the story implies that a wolf will eventually show up.

But it doesn’t. And pretending that I need ignore the implication simply because it is literally true that a wolf shows up at the end is to demand that I be an idiot. And, no, I won’t be. Get over it and stop digging.

[David Nieporent]

to demand that I be an idiot.

Seems to me kind of like demanding that the Pacific Ocean be wet.

[Gandydancer]

It your case it would be just like that.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Boston & Maine RR had manual gates into the 1970s — communities fought automation.

I know of one that *still* has a flagman.