Bizarro World is HERE: Ginsburg sides with Conservative justices, Gorsuch with Liberals!!!

That's because she has no clue what is going on, she just figures that whatever Gorsuch does she will do the opposite

Why would you think each faction would, or should, agree on everything? Not every issue can be neatly identified as conservative or liberal.

Long live Ruth Bader Ginsburg?

My head hurts. Where's the Advil?


PS - Seriously though, this seems like one of those rare cases where people just decided based on honest feelings. No voting bloc.

it's a highly detailed (ie, boring) discussion of the definition of "imprisoned" and "in connection with" of 18 USC 3624

this is the opening of the dissent:

quote:

---

A term of supervised release is tolled when an offender “is imprisoned in connection with a conviction.” 18 U. S. C. §3624(e). The question before the Court is whether pretrial detention later credited as time served for a new offense has this tolling effect. The Court concludes that it does, but it reaches that result by adopting a backward looking approach at odds with the statute’s language and by reading the terms “imprisoned” and “in connection with” in unnatural isolation. Because I cannot agree that a person “is imprisoned in connection with a conviction” before any conviction has occurred, I respectfully dissent

---

also, for a bit of humor, majority opinion:

quote:

---

Mont did not succeed on supervised release.

---

dissent:

quote:

---

Mont’s time on supervised release did not go well

---

but the gist of the dissent is this:

quote:

---

The majority errs by affirming the Sixth Circuit’s construction of the tolling statute. Most naturally read, a person “is imprisoned in connection with a conviction” only while he or she serves a prison term after a conviction. The statute does not allow for tolling when an offender is in pretrial detention and a conviction is no more than a possibility.

---

and it makes no sense

all a Defendant would have to do is drag out a later prosecution until the federal supervision term ended and it would, effectively, "rob" the state of the suspended time the Defendant was granted in exchange for supervised release.

the result would be absurd

quote:

---

The majority’s retrospective approach cannot be squared with the language of §3624(e). Because Congress phrased the provision in the present tense, the statute calls for a contemporaneous assessment of whether a person “is imprisoned” with the requisite connection to a conviction. The majority erroneously shifts the statute’s frame of reference from that present-tense assessment (what is) to a backward-looking review (what was or what has been).

---

that's literally done all the time. the alternative would be to revoke the supervised release with a lower threshold than conviction (which is how every state that I know of does with people on probation or parole), to avoid the possibility of a state proceeding (that the district court has no power over) from dragging on

i get what they're trying to argue (the statute itself is at issue), but there is simply no way that was Congress's intent when the statute was written

Direct link to opinion

If the baby killing bitch voted for it then I am against it.

Do people still think she is dead? That meme seems to have died out