Speaker Johnson Responds to Biden's Executive Order News
Former Democratic Senator Has a Meltdown Over Fact Checking Joe Biden
New Testimony Reveals an IRS Contractor Stole Much More Than Trump's Tax Returns
Speaker Johnson Slams Biden for Latest Race Smear of Republicans
Something Is Missing From Biden's Rage-Laced Tirade Against Republicans
Rashida Tlaib Declares War on Joe Biden
Team Biden Is Losing the Battle on Two Fronts Now
Here's What Nikki Haley Had to Say About Alabama's Supreme Court IVF Ruling
The Businesses Fleeing Corrupt New York Amid $355 Million Trump Verdict
Ted Cruz Reveals Why the Mainstream Media Is Willing to Call Out Joe...
One New York County Makes Bold Move Protecting Women’s Sports
Trump Floated Ron DeSantis As a Possible VP Pick. Here’s How DeSantis Responded.
Wow: Border Patrol Reveals How Many 'Criminal Aliens' Have Been Apprehended at the...
Here's How Control of the Senate Is Looking
Here's Why One Male 'Trans' Athlete Refuses to Compete Against Men
Tipsheet

Whoa: RBG Just Sided With Conservative Justices

AP Photo/Rebecca Gibian

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one of the four liberal justices on the Supreme Court, sided with her conservative colleagues on Monday over a prisoner's supervisory release. She joined Justices Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh in the majority, deciding that a criminal defendant, in this case Jason Mont, can be sentenced for violating his supervised release, even if the release expires while he is incarcerated ahead of facing new charges. Her vote was swapped with conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, who joined liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan in their dissent.

Advertisement

Mont had been indicted by a grand jury for multiple drug and firearm offenses. He was released from federal prison on March 6, 2012, but broke the law again on supervised release, found guilty of two counts of cocaine trafficking. He then tested positive on several drug tests. His supervised release date was set for June  28, 2017.

The District  Court  issued  a  warrant  on  March  30,  2017,  and  ultimately  set  a  supervised-release  hearing  for  June  28, 2017. Two  days  before  that  hearing,  Mont  challenged  the jurisdiction of the District Court based on the fact that his supervised  release  had  initially  been  set  to  expire  on  March 6, 2017.  The court concluded that it had authority to  supervise  Mont,  revoked  his  supervised  release,  and ordered  him  to  serve  an  additional  42  months’  imprisonment  to  run  consecutive  to  his  state  sentence.

Justice Thomas delivered the Court's opinion.

"Under our view, in contrast, time in pretrial  detention  constitutes  supervised  release  only  if the charges against  the  defendant  are  dismissed  or  the defendant is acquitted," he wrote. "This ensures that the defendant is not  faulted  for  conduct he might not  have  committed, while  otherwise  giving  full effect  to  the  lawful judgment previously imposed on the defendant."

Advertisement

Ginsburg's surprise alliance with Thomas comes a week after her tense argument with him over Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. The Court decided against taking up the question of the Sex Selective and Disability Abortion Ban, which, as Justice Thomas described it, bans abortions in which "the mother is seeking the abortion solely because of the child's race, sex, diagnosis of Down syndrome, disability, or related characteristics." He penned a 20-page opinion on how they cannot avoid the issue forever, and that the abortion rights movement was starting to look a lot like eugenics.

"This case highlights the fact that abortion is an act rife with the potential for eugenic manipulation. From the beginning, birth control and abortion were promoted as means of effectuating eugenics," he wrote. "Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger was particularly open about the fact that birth control could be used for eugenic purposes."

A frustrated Ginsburg said that Thomas's diatribe “displays more heat than light." She reasoned that, "A woman who exercises her constitutionally protected right to terminate a pregnancy is not a 'mother.'" 

Advertisement

Today they managed to find an issue on which they have common ground.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement