<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
xmlns:rawvoice="http://www.rawvoice.com/rawvoiceRssModule/"
>

<channel>
	<title>Tax  Lawyer&#039;s  Blog &#187; Supreme Court</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/CATEGORY/supreme-court/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.pappasontaxes.com</link>
	<description>Pappas on Taxation</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:17:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
<!-- podcast_generator="Blubrry PowerPress/2.0.4" -->
	<itunes:summary>Pappas on Taxation</itunes:summary>
	<itunes:author>Tax  Lawyer&#039;s  Blog</itunes:author>
	<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:image href="http://www.pappasontaxes.com/wp-content/plugins/powerpress/itunes_default.jpg" />
	<itunes:subtitle>Pappas on Taxation</itunes:subtitle>
	
		<item>
		<title>Justice Ginsburg Disses Constitution She Swore to Uphold</title>
		<link>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2012/02/03/justice-ginsburg-disses-constitution-she-is-sworn-to-uphold/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2012/02/03/justice-ginsburg-disses-constitution-she-is-sworn-to-uphold/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 03:05:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judicial activism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[justice ginsburg]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[us constitution]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pappasontaxes.com/?p=29306</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If you wonder why conservatives are so concerned about Democrats stacking the court with liberals, read Eugene Volokh&#8217;s blog post reporting that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg appeared on Egyptian television and warned developing nations of the world not to use the U.S. Constitution as a model (emphasis is mine): Liberty Counsel points to these these excerpts of an interview with [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2012/02/03/justice-ginsburg-disses-constitution-she-is-sworn-to-uphold/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Super-Pacs, Citizens United and the Role of Supreme Court Justices</title>
		<link>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2012/01/31/super-pacs-citizens-united-and-the-role-of-supreme-court-justices/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2012/01/31/super-pacs-citizens-united-and-the-role-of-supreme-court-justices/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 02:22:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[citizens united]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ed rendell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[super pacs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court justices]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pappasontaxes.com/?p=29218</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I winced this morning when former Pennsylvania Governor, Democrat Ed Rendell, said that he hoped the Supreme Court majority that had decided the Citizens United case was paying close attention to the corrosive influence of super-pacs in the Republican primary.¹ Mr. Rendell apparently believes that the Citizen United Justices should have based their decision not on what the law was, but on what [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2012/01/31/super-pacs-citizens-united-and-the-role-of-supreme-court-justices/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>SCOTUS to Hear Health Care Mandate Challenge</title>
		<link>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/11/14/scotus-to-hear-health-care-mandate-challenge/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/11/14/scotus-to-hear-health-care-mandate-challenge/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Nov 2011 16:08:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[affordable care act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[florida v departhment of health and human services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[insurance mandate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IRS Penalties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court challenge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tax credits]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pappastax.com/?p=27848</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The United States Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services. The main issue before the court is,  [W]hether the Affordable Care Act‘s mandate that virtually every individual obtain health insurance exceeds Congress‘s enumerated powers and, if so, to what extent (if any) the mandate can be severed from the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/11/14/scotus-to-hear-health-care-mandate-challenge/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama Says He Seeks Diversity on the Federal Bench</title>
		<link>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/08/04/obama-says-he-seeks-diversity-on-the-federal-bench/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/08/04/obama-says-he-seeks-diversity-on-the-federal-bench/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Aug 2011 01:04:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[diversity of opinion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[diversity on federal court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama court appointee]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pappastax.com/?p=24220</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The left is promoting quotas again. Nathan Koppel of the Wall Street Journal says that President Obama wants diversification of the federal bench to be a top priority: National Public Radio today takes a detailed look at the president’s efforts in this regard, including elevating the first Hispanic to the Supreme Court and the first openly gay man [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/08/04/obama-says-he-seeks-diversity-on-the-federal-bench/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court Rules Women Workers Can&#8217;t File Class Action Against Wal-Mart</title>
		<link>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/06/20/supreme-court-rules-women-workers-cant-file-class-action-against-wal-mart/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/06/20/supreme-court-rules-women-workers-cant-file-class-action-against-wal-mart/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jun 2011 20:22:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[american jobs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[anti capitalist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[left wing radicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[walmart discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[walmart suit]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pappastax.com/?p=22450</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Bloomberg reports that the anti-Walmart left was handed a big blow today in a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling: The U.S. Supreme Court, in a ruling that will mean new limits on nationwide class-action suits, ruled that Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT) can’t be sued for discrimination on behalf of potentially a million female workers. The justices, dividing 5-4, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/06/20/supreme-court-rules-women-workers-cant-file-class-action-against-wal-mart/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court Won&#8217;t Hear Snipes Appeal</title>
		<link>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/06/06/supreme-court-wont-hear-snipes-appeal/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/06/06/supreme-court-wont-hear-snipes-appeal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Jun 2011 23:03:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cert]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[failing to file]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[filing false return]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[irs crime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[petition for cert]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[snipes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tax crime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tax evasion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wesley snipes]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pappastax.com/?p=21894</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It didn&#8217;t take a missile scientist to predict that the Supreme Court would deny Wesley Snipes&#8217; petition for certiorari. FoxNews reports: There will be no courtroom retake for actor Wesley Snipes as the Supreme Court announced Monday that it will not give further consideration to an appeal from the Hollywood star who is serving a three-year [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/06/06/supreme-court-wont-hear-snipes-appeal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>More Snipes Silliness</title>
		<link>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/03/03/more-snipes-silliness/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/03/03/more-snipes-silliness/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Mar 2011 21:01:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax Crimes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[irs crime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[irs fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[proper venue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[snipes appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[snipes supreme court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[speedy trial rule]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tax crime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tax fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[venue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wesley snipes]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pappastax.com/?p=21265</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I just read Snipes&#8217;s petiton for cert and discovered that his lawyers&#8217; arguments are wackier than I had first thought. Before his criminal trial Wesley Snipes claimed that venue was not proper in the Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division. The Court then allowed the venue issue to be presented to the jury. The jury found, by [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/03/03/more-snipes-silliness/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Snipes&#8217; Lawyers Talk him into Supreme Court Challenge</title>
		<link>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/03/03/snipes-lawyers-talk-him-into-supreme-court-challenge/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/03/03/snipes-lawyers-talk-him-into-supreme-court-challenge/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Mar 2011 15:43:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax Crimes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[eddie ray cahn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[failing to file]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[failure to file]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[false return]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IRS crimes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[snipes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[snipes appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[snipes conviction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tax evasion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wesley snipes]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pappastax.com/?p=21252</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We are all familiar with Parkinson&#8217;s Law which states: Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion. After following the big tent circus some people like to call the Wesley Snipes tax case, I have discovered a new law: The number of legal arguments available to a Defendant increases in proportion to the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/03/03/snipes-lawyers-talk-him-into-supreme-court-challenge/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Nine Isn&#8217;t Enough: Diversity, Identity Politics &amp; The Supreme Court</title>
		<link>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2010/05/11/nine-isnt-enough-diversity-identity-politics-the-supreme-court/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2010/05/11/nine-isnt-enough-diversity-identity-politics-the-supreme-court/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 May 2010 19:39:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[diversity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[identity politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[kagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[leibowich]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patricia harris]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pappastax.com/?p=16706</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Race and gender hustlers have done an excellent job over the years of convincing minorities that only government officials who share their countenance and culture will treat them fairly. For example, the idea that a white police officer might be just as inclined as a black officer to treat a black citizen with dignity and respect is foreign to them. And the idea [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2010/05/11/nine-isnt-enough-diversity-identity-politics-the-supreme-court/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court</title>
		<link>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2010/05/10/elena-kagan-for-the-supreme-court/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2010/05/10/elena-kagan-for-the-supreme-court/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 May 2010 12:33:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[elena kagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legislative Watch]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pappastax.com/?p=16662</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Wall Street Journal reports that President Obama will nominate Solicitor General Elena Kagan to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by the retirement of  Justice John Paul Stevens: In making his choice, aides said the president looked for someone with not only a top legal mind but also the ability to bring people of differing [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2010/05/10/elena-kagan-for-the-supreme-court/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Justice Stevens&#8217; Anti-Tax Opinion</title>
		<link>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2010/04/10/judge-stevens-on-taxes/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2010/04/10/judge-stevens-on-taxes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 Apr 2010 15:34:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[State Taxes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[commerce clause]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet sales]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[john stevens]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[justice stevens]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[out of state sales]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[physical presence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[quill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sales tax]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pappastax.com/?p=15971</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Declan McCullagh writing for CNET News says that in spite of being one of the most liberal Justices on the court, John Paul Stevens is the author of arguably the most important pro-business/anti-tax opinion of the e-commerce age: Amazon.com, Newegg.com, Overstock.com, and other major Internet retailers can trace much of their growth in the last [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2010/04/10/judge-stevens-on-taxes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court Jurisprudence: Public Opinion is Irrelevant</title>
		<link>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2010/02/18/supreme-court-jurisprudence-public-opinion-is-irrelevant/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2010/02/18/supreme-court-jurisprudence-public-opinion-is-irrelevant/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2010 18:44:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[citzens united]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[constitutional law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[first amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal reasoning]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pappastax.com/?p=14459</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A fellow named Bret Michael Dykes in article written for Yahoo news makes much of the fact that a majority of Americans are opposed to the Supreme Court&#8217;s recent ruling in Citizens United: A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that the vast majority of Americans are vehemently opposed to a recent Supreme Court ruling [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2010/02/18/supreme-court-jurisprudence-public-opinion-is-irrelevant/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>First Amendment Guru Floyd Abrams Applauds Citizens United Decision</title>
		<link>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2010/02/03/first-amendment-guru-floyd-abrams-applauds-citizens-united-decision/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2010/02/03/first-amendment-guru-floyd-abrams-applauds-citizens-united-decision/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 14:09:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[citizens united]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[corporate speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[first amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[floyd abrams]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[free speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judicial activism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judicial reasoning]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pappastax.com/?p=14154</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Wall Street Journal&#8217;s James Taranto spoke with First Amendment God Floyd Abrams a few days ago about the Citizens United decision banning bans on corporate political speech: &#8220;Here is a very committed, very conservative entity that does a film attacking then-Sen. Hillary Clinton when she seemed likely to be nominated for president by the Democratic Party,&#8221; Mr. Abrams says. &#8220;I [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2010/02/03/first-amendment-guru-floyd-abrams-applauds-citizens-united-decision/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama Slams Supreme Court on Result, not Legal Reasoning</title>
		<link>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2010/01/28/obama-slams-supreme-court-on-result-not-legal-reasoning/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2010/01/28/obama-slams-supreme-court-on-result-not-legal-reasoning/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:05:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[campaign finance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[citizens united]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[first amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[free speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mccain feingold]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[political campaign]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[separation of powers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[state of the union]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pappastax.com/?p=13846</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Last night President Obama did something I have not seen a President do before in a State of the Union address. He reprimanded the Supreme Court, a co-equal branch of the federal government, for handing down a decision (Citizens United) with which he personally disagrees: Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2010/01/28/obama-slams-supreme-court-on-result-not-legal-reasoning/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Justice Sotomayor: Felicidades Señora</title>
		<link>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2009/08/06/sotomayor-is-a-supreme-court-justice-ehhorabuena-senora/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2009/08/06/sotomayor-is-a-supreme-court-justice-ehhorabuena-senora/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2009 02:25:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legislative Watch]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[advise and consent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scotus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sotamayor]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pappastax.com/?p=8673</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[CNN reports that the United States Senate concluded their advice and consent role and confirmed President Obama&#8217;s appointment of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court: Judge Sonia Sotomayor, who rose from the housing projects of the Bronx to the top of the legal profession, made history Thursday when the Senate confirmed her to become [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2009/08/06/sotomayor-is-a-supreme-court-justice-ehhorabuena-senora/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Judge Sotomayor&#8217;s Tax Case: A Lesson in the Plain Meaning Rule from Chief Justice Roberts</title>
		<link>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2009/07/13/sotomayor-misread-simple-tax-law-scolded-by-chief-justice-roberts/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2009/07/13/sotomayor-misread-simple-tax-law-scolded-by-chief-justice-roberts/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2009 04:11:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legislative Watch]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2% floor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[miscellaneous decuctions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[section 67]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[section 67(a)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[section 67(e)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sotomayor tax case]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court tax case]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trust administration expenses]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trust investment advisory expenses]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pappastax.com/?p=7101</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Judge Sonia Sotomayor&#8217;s Supreme Court confirmation hearing begins today before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. Although she has been on the Second Circuit bench for 12 years, she has written the majority opinion in only one significant tax case. The case is Knight (Rudkin) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue  and it was appealed to the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Roberts writing for [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2009/07/13/sotomayor-misread-simple-tax-law-scolded-by-chief-justice-roberts/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

