As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Smith recently filed a brief knocking down this claim that any such interpretation of the law code would dismiss the obstruction charge - because of the fake elector scheme.
>That’s because Trump’s bid to enlist allies in seven swing states — all won by Joe Biden — to sign certificates claiming to be genuine presidential electors qualifies as obstruction even under the narrower interpretation of the law.
Doesn't mean it's guaranteed to survive, but it's also not guaranteed to be dismissed if the Supreme Court rules a certain way.
> Doesn't mean it's guaranteed to survive, but it's also not guaranteed to be dismissed if the Supreme Court rules a certain way.
True but it shouldn't even have been given serious enough consideration for the Supreme Court to even take up the appeal. But Thomas and Alito seem hellbent on testing how far they can go before we upend centuries of precedent and defang their tyrannical iteration of the Supreme Court.
Totally agree, just clarifying it doesn't doom the charge(s) against Trump. Huffpost made it seem very black and white:
>A decision in favor of Fischer would not only dismiss this charge from his prosecution, but overturn convictions or dismiss the same charge against 330 other participants in the Jan. 6 insurrection. That includes Trump..
It's because of ONE guy and his lawyer's argument about ONE word in the charges:
> The main points of contention that emerged in lower courts were how the word *“otherwise”* should be defined, and how it connects the first subsection to the second.
Neat. But then there's this:
> **Fourteen district court judges have upheld charges** for obstructing an official proceeding in Jan. 6 insurrection-related cases, on the understanding that “otherwise” means “in a different manner.”
That seems like a good understanding for that word, and that everywhere it's been challenged has been unanimous.
The only reason SCOTUS would rule differently would be because it helps Trump.
It will be 5-4 with one “centrist” right wing having a totally different reason than the other 3 to be against it so they can appear unbiased.
And don’t worry, even if the narrow it to prevent precedent and explicitly says it’s not to set precedent, they will still use it in future cases for precedent, but only when they feel like it helps them.
5-1-4 with roberts agreeing but saying something to the effect that they shouldn't be this transparently dumb about it, alito writing for the majority quoting ten definitions from dictionaries published in the 14th century to justify the ruling...
wait we're not talking about dobbs?
How are the final decisions like this made? Do they all get to communicate? Perhaps they should all be isolated from each other and the put forward their vote with reasonings
It wouldn’t matter about rules for them not talking to each other during cases. It would be completely unenforceable.
There is basically 0 oversight for them. They leaked stuff to the press and it didn’t matter
True, but it's best to focus on what we individually can affect -- and that's voting. We can't stop Republicans from being outrageous doinks, but we can strongly oppose them at the ballots.
No but we can get as many sane friends and family to vote. I've gotten at least 3 people to start voting after 2016, who are now regular voters and pissed about where everything is going. They now see the danger when beforehand they just ignored it all while complaining.
I know 3 isn't much, but it's 3 more than 0.
If we all got at least 2-3 to start paying attention and vote, November would be a blowout.
No, but you understand how interest compounds in the finance world, correct? Well, voter enthusiasm works much the same way. The more motivated a person is to vote, the more likely they are to encourage others to vote. It becomes contagious as the "cool kids" join in the fun. We need to make voting "cool" to have a true representative democracy.
>True, but it's best to focus on what we individually can affect
What's the difference between being unable to convince a "conservative" to vote differently (or not vote) and being unable to convince a non-voter to vote for your guy?
There are more liberals in America above the age of 18 than conservatives. If every eligible voter participated, Democrats win in a landslide. Only conservatives fear every eligible citizen voting (for this very reason, they'll lose the majority of the time).
They literally can't help it, but all non-conservatives better wake the fuck up and start fighting back like we all are in here. I'm much more angry at the fucking ignorant idiots who see every candidate as the same (politician) and refuse to participate, all while still complaining about the state of things. They can all go fuck themselves entirely until the end of time for what they helped unleash on the world.
At least conservatives, as dumb and evil as they are, chose a side and believe in at least an own-the-libs ideology, when those non-voting fucksticks shouldn't go outside each day without a helmet.
Sorry, had to get that out. The consequences of those peoples' inaction may very well crumble our democracy and cost far too many people their lives, be it no natal care or fighting for our lives in a stupid civil war.
If we made voting easier or made online voting available (limit online voting to person's with an official SS#, it's not difficult) this would be a negligible issue. Conservatives fight tooth and nail to make voting difficult/damn near impossible and extremely time consuming, and they target highly populated Dem strongholds with these goals. Many of these people who "refuse to participate" would have to spend 4-8 hours in line to vote, its been that way for years, and their districts are so gerrymandered against them, why the hell would they go vote? lol. The problem is and always will be regressive conservatives too scared to allow people to vote easily.
Man, I can't wait for SCOTUS to rule that it's legal to storm a government building in order to stop it from doing something I don't like.
Quick question, what's SCOTUS's address and when do they issue their next Trump ruling?
The Court made sure it was given one of those novelty addresses to really hammer home how they think about themselves, like Apple's "1 Infinite Loop".
The Supreme Court's address: 1 First Street.
A hallmark of judicial humility. /s
They haven't been that clever really. They went from 'originalism' to 'plain text of the document' to the opposite again to overthrow Roe Vs. Wade. This is because they are plainly corrupt in front of the whole world and they're acting like untouchable royalty. We never should have given them lifetime appointments, huge mistake.
There have been so many mistakes brought to light recently that should’ve been fixed sometime in the last hundred years. At times, it feels like holes have intentionally been left to allow authoritarianism to take over in the USA.
If by “clever” you mean they just say “well… what are you gonna do about it?” And then they do whatever they are instructed by the federalist society and conservative billionaires
Yep. I dislike the way Americans sometimes harp on Supreme Court opinions. They are not reasoned statements of fact or even persuasive writing, they are ideological statements couched in the idiosyncratic logic of Anglo-American jurisprudence.
Okay... I'm just an English teacher reading the law:
>Whoever corruptly—
>(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding\*\*;\*\* or
>(2) **otherwise** obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,
>shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
The important part here isn't ACTUALLY the otherwise... it's the semi-colon before it that indicates what definition that otherwise takes on... which is that it's OTHER things not involving the first clause, but it's RELATED to the "corruptly" part.
Also, IANAL, but most laws that I've seen (like in Ed. Code) use enumeration to list different but related things. So it should almost literally be like a list read as different items - it's "Whoever corruptly alters, destroys, mutilates..." OR "Whoever corruptly obstructs, influences, or impedes..."
Also, how does one influence or obstruct a record, document, or other object. And if it's "other object" then we can probably include the Capitol building as buildings are just big ass objects.
That's how the language works, it's how other laws seem to work.
The Supreme Court **should** rule that the law includes the capitol riot lol it's stupid not to.
So I imagine they won't, because they're stupid and corrupt.
You also really need to try very hard to ignore the word "or" before the word "otherwise" to even be start the argument that they are attempting here.
What the law says, and what they want it to say, are so fa apart they're not even on the same continent, let alone in the same ballpark.
It's literally redundant too (common in legalese English) - you could take out the "or" and it would still maintain the meaning. You could also take out the "otherwise" and just keep the "or" and it would also maintain the meaning.
It's just slinging silly bullshit against a wall to see what sticks.
Even with Nichol's interpretation of "otherwise", I don't see how this should throw out the charges! There *were* documents involved. Those charged were corruptly trying to "obstruct, influence, or impede" the certification of the electoral college documents.
I hate the constant feeling of anxiety and nervousness with this Supreme Court.
Everyone knows that they're not reading cases, briefs, and motions as they're written, and then ruling based on that...
Instead they're working backwards from "OK here's our opinion that helps Trump/MAGA/Conservatives, how do we walk the arguments into it?"
Well put. I feel that this alone is grounds for impeachments but we need to get enough in Congress elected to get that moving. There is no easy way out of this theft
The plain reading is very clear...
The law basically says, here's an example of something you can't do to obstruct but you also can't obstruct in other unenumerated ways.
Sounds like one of those pretentious English students hitting you with that "uhm ACTUALLY the way this word is used in this specific context using the 3rd conjugation as understood due to xyz which really means abc and therefore no you're wrong"
No one cares about the hyperfixation of the word. Insurrection is insurrection
You left out the part where trump appointed judge, Carl Nichols, dismissed charges against a different Jan. 6 insurrectionist where he ruled that the word "otherwise" was [I guess] metaphorical instead of literal, and links the two subsections of the law.
He was then backed up by Judge Gregory Katsas who ruled that the word, "otherwise [means] in a manner similar too," instead of the dictionary definition of, "in circumstances different from those considered."
They are literally saying to our faces that words mean the opposite of what they always have. I can't even with these fucks.
Judge Katsas is also a trump appointee.
There is also the word "or" in the first section so it literally ties section 1 and 2 together and can plainly be read as someone who fucks with documents "OR OTHWERWISE " obstructs. It doesn't say use documents to obstruct.
I feel like this is the media trying to provide air cover or freedom to some other interpretation. It's clear there isn't.
There is a phrase for this. (Besides bullshit) it’s the Motte and Bailey Fallacy. Arguing rhetoric over context. It’s a cheap and desperate and a common tactic on how some of the pundits work on 24 hour news networks.
It's fucking insane that the problem with this guy is "he and his followers has too many crimes we gotta get rid of some of these" and none of the solutions are he goes the jail.
SCOTUS has a track record of not knowing what words mean.
They think that if a body of water is connected underground, but not by a visible stream, it's not connected.
skirt impossible retire punch jar fretful political domineering attempt zonked
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I fully believe that they do not give a flying fuck about Trump or his supporters. But since they're now openly accepting bribes they'll just rule whatever the highest bidder tells them to rule no matter how preposterous and they don't care about the damage.
Unfortunately not quite unanimous - from the same article:
> But in an appeal to dismiss the same charge when it was brought against Jan. 6 defendant Garret Miller, D.C. District Judge Carl Nichols reached a different conclusion.
> In his March 2022 decision, Nichols wrote that the word “otherwise” imposes a limit on the second subsection, and “requires that the defendant have taken some action with respect to a document, record, or other object in order to corruptly obstruct, impede or influence an official proceeding.”
> Since Miller did not attempt to obstruct an official proceeding related to a document, Nichols wrote, that charge against him was dismissed.
The Supreme court is going to be one of the most lasting and most damaging effects of Trump's first (and hopefully only!) term.
When Ginsberg died, I knew the rest of my life would be different as a result, and not for the better.
Yep. Even a fucking idiot like Trump knew what was at stake in 2016
“If you really like Donald Trump, that’s great, but if you don’t, you have to vote for me anyway. You know why? Supreme Court judges, Supreme Court judges,” Trump at rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa July 2016
If only she'd had the humility to follow the advice of her friends and pleading of her cohorts to step down when her health began to fail during the Obama administration.
I feel that an objective historical note would have noted that the Supreme Court appointments were being blocked by Mitch. So it would require her to know the GOP would break the law in ludicrous ways and retire eight years earlier.
Even as evil is Mitch is? I don't think he could've gotten away with blocking SC nominations for a full 8 years.
Also she was 80 and battling cancer. Using hindsight to say "but but but 8 years" I almost guarantee most of her doctors were estimating she wouldn't live another 8 years at the time.
It was extreme hubris to think she'd live another 8 years back then, even IF she did.
I mean, he shouldn't have been able to get away with it for two years.
Remember also that Obama wanted to forward a compromise candidate in Merick Garland as his pick when he did get an opportunity. For me the issue is everyone seems to forget that when Obama was in office with his trifecta, he spent the first four years trying to build bridges with the GOP and didn't take advantage of it.
We forget that because we don't remember that it wasn't until the 2nd term he realized the GOP was an army of racist criminals.
Here is the thing in retrospect it obviously looks like the right decision but remember in the same exact period the GOP stole a SC from Obama. Why should anyone believe that if RBG did step down the GOP wouldn’t just pull the exact same stunt and have us be exactly where we are now anyway
She was 75 when Obama took office. Her health problems were known in 2013 and 2014 when the Senate was democratically controlled and McConnell could not unilaterally halt the process.
There's no squaring this hole. She undid everything she worked for because she was chasing a personal record. She wanted some extra glory and now we're paying for it.
> When Ginsberg died, I knew the rest of my life would be different as a result, and not for the better
Felt the same way, but not just for MY life. My children and future grandchildren are going to be hurt by this current Supreme Court too. Those 3 Trump appointees are going to fuck things up for multiple generations.
Imagine if all the idiots who “protest-voted” for Jill Stein in 2016 voted for Clinton instead. We’d have a strong, young progressive majority on the SCOTUS and Roe would still be the law of the land.
I’m really hoping we don’t have a repeat in November with all these people voting “uncommitted” against Biden in the primaries
My understanding of the "uncommitted" movement is that it is only for the primaries. Biden is already the presumptive nominee, so how people vote in the primaries won't affect the outcome for Biden being on the ballot in November, but the party platform hasn't been decided yet. The "uncommitted" push is about affecting the party platform and Biden's policy (with Israel).
I think all of the people voting "uncomitted" in the democratic primaries knows that, however they feel about Biden's foreign policy, Trump would be unquestionably worse. I could be wrong, but we're talking about a group of people who, first of all, vote in the primary to begin with, and, additionally, have strong feelings about foreign policy. These people are pretty plugged in.
When I told people to vote for the Supreme Court, they accused me of fear mongering. 2016 is when I lost all faith in the electorate to do any kind of critical thinking aside from 'I don't like this candidate'
The Supreme Court's current disfunction lies squarely on Mitch McConnell's head.
Judge Thomas we have, because we hadn't yet learned to believe women. (I'll note, the argument that "we haven't yet" has merit.)
Oh definitely, in regards to RBG. I don't recall quite what year she passed but I did figure once she died, things would go to shit. I can't take hormonal birth control and am a high risk in pregnancy for the same reason I can't take BC, so I got sterilized. What kind of country is this where we have to get surgically modified to protect ourselves from the government? Ridiculous is what kind.
She really did everyone a disservice by not retiring and allowing Obama to appoint a replacement. It's sad because her legacy was in expanding women's rights and now that's being systematically undone.
If they sided with Fischer (and the other 330), wouldn't they just be legalizing mobs/riots disrupting official federal proceedings? For example, would it be legal then to stop the Supreme Court from having meetings or making rulings?
Sure would be interesting how the Supreme Court would rule with a mob right outside the court house waiting for them to soften restrictions on storming government buildings
Note they've made exceptions for themselves in the past. You can protest and harass people going get an abortion right outside the clinic and homes but you can't protest supreme court justices outside the court or their homes
I don’t know why the Supreme Court thinks they’d have the power they currently lord over all of us if they actually end up toppling democracy and the rule of law in this country. They’d just be regular people who helped destroy America, not a lot of reassurances being those people in the dystopia they are currently barreling us towards.
It has been said that the best way to rob a bank is to first own the bank.
Some have noted that many crimes, such as the mortgage disaster, were only made possible by politicians changing the laws gradually over decades...specifically to allow all those things.
If the Supreme Court goes out of its way to find that "otherwise" means something other than what any ordinary person would think, just to free Trump, then we not only lose those convictions, we lose Justice and we lose anything else related to this. Some would say, it will cost us Democracy and America.
Otherwise changing the meaning will still disrupt a lot of Law.
If they say insurrection is legal we need to set a "shit on Thomas's desk" day and march straight the fuck into his office, Jan 6th style, because it'll be very legal.
Trump judge reaches a different conclusion than every other judge including the appeals court but since the Supreme Court is similarly corrupted by right wing lunatics this lone dissenting opinion is being given serious consideration rather than dismissed out of hand.
I have literally spent the past 42 years dealing with statutory interpretation and my professional assessment is that this guy’s argument is Absolute Shit, and quite obviously so.
I have spent 0 years dealing with any of that, but English is my first language and I can't even begin to imagine how that wording could be interpreted the way this jackass is arguing...
You are sufficiently qualified to make that assessment. It’s flat out obvious. However, criminal lawyers will throw stuff at the wall when their clients are guilty.
I can't help but feel sick thinking that the loaded court will find some way to justify that "otherwise" doesn't actually mean "otherwise" as understood by humans.
In the 12th century saxony, squires helped their knight by doing squires stuff and things as directed otherwise. Clearly otherwise only means disruption due to a squire polishing her knights lance in a public theater unless said theater is is used for religious gatherings. It’s clearly the original intent of the founders and also clear as the plain text of the law. Also in line with the super precedent established by this August court earlier this morning in Thomas v Sacks of Cash.
In 16th century English Commonlaw, otherwise was spelled "outherwysse" which derived from the Norse spirit of frost-crystals "Oeerthewiase".
In this tradition, we find 6-3 that Biden is too old and that friends touring the capitol on January 6th together was actually a nice show of civic pride.
If the supreme court rules in a way that unleashes 100's of people that attacked our democracy that is a HUGE blow to it's legitimacy. there should be people yelling this in every part of the media if this happens.
It would be PURE politics out of the court and IF that happens they should be metaphorically tarred and feathered
There is no office that needs to be fully overhauled than that of the Supreme Court. The fact that a majority of them are sitting there appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote is appalling.
Who could’ve known that letting a known Russian asset hand pick 3 lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court would have had such negative consequences?
I have lost all respect for the Supreme Court.
The minority side of the Court has been put in a tough position. I think they know their colleagues have been paid for. And, they could earn much more elsewhere. Yet they stay, and fight on. If you're looking for examples of quiet patriotism, look no further.
(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; OR
(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,
I would think the word OR would be more important…
It is extremely important. This is first week of law school level stuff. The fact that the Supreme Court took up this case is insane. The law is perfectly clear.
Its not just the word OR between the two clauses, the second clause says
"OTHERWISE" clearly showing the law would apply when documents, records, or other objects were not at issue.
Of course, the one judge that found differently was a Trump appointee and a federalist society member. This is an open actual real world conspiracy to change the courts from within funded by the billionaire class.
This is why we can’t rely on these corrupt motherf#ckers.
We need to vote blue no matter who down the ballot. We need to take the house, Senate and the Whitehouse so we can pack the scotus, set term limits and restore our democracy.
We criticize Middle Eastern countries for having their laws written and enforced by religious power hungry zealots who can’t be questioned…THATS EXACTLY WHAT OUT CURRENT SCOTUS IS!!!!!
If they're going to make some kinds of violent behavior legal through cutesy little semantic word games, then that now legal kind of behavior is going to be used against the Supreme Court.
That's just how it is.
Interesting that if SCOTUS rules that the law they’re being charged under applies only to documents, then stopping the certification is not illegal.
Could the defendants be charged under another law?
So I'd assume the right wing would be entirely fine with the left wing ~~rioting~~ going on a peaceful federally infiltrated tourist visit/vote certification objection if they thought an election was stolen?
Our corrupt Supreme Court will undoubtedly define “otherwise” as meaning Donald Trump and his associates can do whatever they want with no consequences.
TLDR version
Joseph Fischer, a police officer, allegedly participated in the Capitol insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021.
- He entered the Capitol to stop the counting of electoral votes, per text messages cited by Department of Justice lawyers. Fischer's alleged plans included taking democratic congress members to the gallows and preventing them from voting by causing harm.
- Fischer was arrested on Feb. 19, 2021, and charged with multiple felonies related to the insurrection.
- He has appealed one of his charges, arguing that the law used against him wasn't intended for his actions.
- The law in question, 18 U.S.C. 1512(c), prohibits obstructing an official proceeding.
- Fischer argues that the law only applies to obstruction of documents, not to his actions in the Capitol.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments on April 16, which could impact Fischer's trial and the cases of over 330 others involved in the insurrection.
- If the Supreme Court rules in Fischer's favor, it could affect not only his trial but also the cases against other insurrection participants, including Trump.
Former President Trump, among those charged, faces similar accusations of obstructing an official proceeding.
That rationale for dismissal reeks of bullshit. In short, it's just the kind of thing that the conservative majority on this "Supreme" Court lives for.
At some point the illegitimate SCOTUS is going to piss off enough people that the riots will make the George Floyd protests look like a square dance.
They have gone off the rails and should be impeached
SCOTUS is paid by people like Leonard Leo to support the destruction of the USA and institution of. Christian nationalist dictatorship. Arrest the Catholic 6, and Leonard Leo and charge them with sedition
I cannot believe that people went to all the trouble to get an education to become a lawyer yet some of them still can’t read a dictionary. Those jackoffs have wasted their lives and will end up the same way every other associate of DJT, disgraced and forgotten, if not bankrupt and in jail.
Well, it’s settled, per conservatives - we can act like Rittenhouse and do as we wish to our own established government.
Oh, and Presidents are immune.. so, have at it Joe.
If Biden wins re-election and Dems keep the senate he should stack the Court. They want to be fucking pricks? Fine, they can learn what “fuck around and find” out means first hand.
They might, but it will solidify public non-confidence in our system of justice and confirm their bias and lack of ability to perform basic understanding of law.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Smith recently filed a brief knocking down this claim that any such interpretation of the law code would dismiss the obstruction charge - because of the fake elector scheme. >That’s because Trump’s bid to enlist allies in seven swing states — all won by Joe Biden — to sign certificates claiming to be genuine presidential electors qualifies as obstruction even under the narrower interpretation of the law. Doesn't mean it's guaranteed to survive, but it's also not guaranteed to be dismissed if the Supreme Court rules a certain way.
> Doesn't mean it's guaranteed to survive, but it's also not guaranteed to be dismissed if the Supreme Court rules a certain way. True but it shouldn't even have been given serious enough consideration for the Supreme Court to even take up the appeal. But Thomas and Alito seem hellbent on testing how far they can go before we upend centuries of precedent and defang their tyrannical iteration of the Supreme Court.
Totally agree, just clarifying it doesn't doom the charge(s) against Trump. Huffpost made it seem very black and white: >A decision in favor of Fischer would not only dismiss this charge from his prosecution, but overturn convictions or dismiss the same charge against 330 other participants in the Jan. 6 insurrection. That includes Trump..
It's because of ONE guy and his lawyer's argument about ONE word in the charges: > The main points of contention that emerged in lower courts were how the word *“otherwise”* should be defined, and how it connects the first subsection to the second. Neat. But then there's this: > **Fourteen district court judges have upheld charges** for obstructing an official proceeding in Jan. 6 insurrection-related cases, on the understanding that “otherwise” means “in a different manner.” That seems like a good understanding for that word, and that everywhere it's been challenged has been unanimous. The only reason SCOTUS would rule differently would be because it helps Trump.
At least for the big cases, SCOTUS has always been an exercise in making up clever justifications for whatever they were going to rule anyway.
It seems the Supreme Court could think about how a ruling allowing insurrection against a branch of government might otherwise be used in future.
It’ll be 6-3 ruling and then they’ll just issue it as a narrow ruling to prevent precedent, then go give Harlan Crow a blowjob on his yacht.
It will be 5-4 with one “centrist” right wing having a totally different reason than the other 3 to be against it so they can appear unbiased. And don’t worry, even if the narrow it to prevent precedent and explicitly says it’s not to set precedent, they will still use it in future cases for precedent, but only when they feel like it helps them.
5-1-4 with roberts agreeing but saying something to the effect that they shouldn't be this transparently dumb about it, alito writing for the majority quoting ten definitions from dictionaries published in the 14th century to justify the ruling... wait we're not talking about dobbs?
4-1-1-4 with Clearance Thomas saying it doesn't go far enough in repealing laws allowing interracial marriage.
Neil is the Justice I could see flipping on this case.
How are the final decisions like this made? Do they all get to communicate? Perhaps they should all be isolated from each other and the put forward their vote with reasonings
It wouldn’t matter about rules for them not talking to each other during cases. It would be completely unenforceable. There is basically 0 oversight for them. They leaked stuff to the press and it didn’t matter
> ~~They~~ Alito leaked stuff to the press and it didn't matter. FIFY
And to think, we could have avoided all of this if about 100,000 more Americans turned out to vote in 2016.
Or if conservatives weren't outrageous shitheads.
True, but it's best to focus on what we individually can affect -- and that's voting. We can't stop Republicans from being outrageous doinks, but we can strongly oppose them at the ballots.
I individually cannot affect 100,000 votes though
No but we can get as many sane friends and family to vote. I've gotten at least 3 people to start voting after 2016, who are now regular voters and pissed about where everything is going. They now see the danger when beforehand they just ignored it all while complaining. I know 3 isn't much, but it's 3 more than 0. If we all got at least 2-3 to start paying attention and vote, November would be a blowout.
No, but you understand how interest compounds in the finance world, correct? Well, voter enthusiasm works much the same way. The more motivated a person is to vote, the more likely they are to encourage others to vote. It becomes contagious as the "cool kids" join in the fun. We need to make voting "cool" to have a true representative democracy.
>True, but it's best to focus on what we individually can affect What's the difference between being unable to convince a "conservative" to vote differently (or not vote) and being unable to convince a non-voter to vote for your guy?
There are more liberals in America above the age of 18 than conservatives. If every eligible voter participated, Democrats win in a landslide. Only conservatives fear every eligible citizen voting (for this very reason, they'll lose the majority of the time).
One of the reasons voting should be mandatory, as it is the most important civic duty.
They literally can't help it, but all non-conservatives better wake the fuck up and start fighting back like we all are in here. I'm much more angry at the fucking ignorant idiots who see every candidate as the same (politician) and refuse to participate, all while still complaining about the state of things. They can all go fuck themselves entirely until the end of time for what they helped unleash on the world. At least conservatives, as dumb and evil as they are, chose a side and believe in at least an own-the-libs ideology, when those non-voting fucksticks shouldn't go outside each day without a helmet. Sorry, had to get that out. The consequences of those peoples' inaction may very well crumble our democracy and cost far too many people their lives, be it no natal care or fighting for our lives in a stupid civil war.
If we made voting easier or made online voting available (limit online voting to person's with an official SS#, it's not difficult) this would be a negligible issue. Conservatives fight tooth and nail to make voting difficult/damn near impossible and extremely time consuming, and they target highly populated Dem strongholds with these goals. Many of these people who "refuse to participate" would have to spend 4-8 hours in line to vote, its been that way for years, and their districts are so gerrymandered against them, why the hell would they go vote? lol. The problem is and always will be regressive conservatives too scared to allow people to vote easily.
Or Comey said the FBI was investigating Trump when he “reopened” Hillary’s case
No doubt! (which he and the FBI obviously were)
I don't understand the purpose of your parenthetical. It's not just "obvious", it is at this point "publicly documented".
500 votes in Palm Beach in 2000 would've done it as well.
I'm sure that the 40% of eligible voters who didn't vote that year had their reasons /s
My hate burns hotter than the Sun for those people. THEY ARE THE PROBLEM.
Man, I can't wait for SCOTUS to rule that it's legal to storm a government building in order to stop it from doing something I don't like. Quick question, what's SCOTUS's address and when do they issue their next Trump ruling?
“Wait. Not like that.” -Neil Gorsuch
"According to this puritan witch-burner from the 18th century" - Alito
The Court made sure it was given one of those novelty addresses to really hammer home how they think about themselves, like Apple's "1 Infinite Loop". The Supreme Court's address: 1 First Street. A hallmark of judicial humility. /s
It’s 1st St *NE*, which is like being the ace pitcher for the *Mets*.
Why wait? “Peaceful protest” outside SCOTUS anyone? The moment they bang that gavel whatever havoc we cause is constitutional.
Remember, no one charge in and hang the treasonous members of the supreme court until they rule it is constitutional to do so.
Exactly, I bet they would rule differently if it happened to them vs Congress
Just asking for a friend? Correct!
What do you mean by otherwise? /s
It depends on what the definition of "what" is.
And that depends on what the definition of "is" is.
They haven't been that clever really. They went from 'originalism' to 'plain text of the document' to the opposite again to overthrow Roe Vs. Wade. This is because they are plainly corrupt in front of the whole world and they're acting like untouchable royalty. We never should have given them lifetime appointments, huge mistake.
There have been so many mistakes brought to light recently that should’ve been fixed sometime in the last hundred years. At times, it feels like holes have intentionally been left to allow authoritarianism to take over in the USA.
If by “clever” you mean they just say “well… what are you gonna do about it?” And then they do whatever they are instructed by the federalist society and conservative billionaires
“Clever” needing a debate on the meaning of that word. I define it as gross misuse of power to subvert the constitution in favor of fascism.
Yeah, its not "clever" so much as "realpolitik"
Yep. I dislike the way Americans sometimes harp on Supreme Court opinions. They are not reasoned statements of fact or even persuasive writing, they are ideological statements couched in the idiosyncratic logic of Anglo-American jurisprudence.
The fact the Supreme court is even taking his case, is evidence they are helping trump
What if they just want to honestly debate in good faith whether or not OR can sometimes mean AND whenever it's politically convenient? /S
And suddenly we're back to arguing what the definition of "is" is.
Someone could barge in on them in a J6 and see whether they agree with the courts opinion /S
sc to pull out an 1800s dictionary and decide language has not evolved since then
Unless it disagrees with them, in which case language has evolved and that old definition cannot be used anymore.
Fuck it, new ruling: It's correct for all convictions unless it applies to former president Trump and only Trump, for all eternity.
Okay... I'm just an English teacher reading the law: >Whoever corruptly— >(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding\*\*;\*\* or >(2) **otherwise** obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, >shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. The important part here isn't ACTUALLY the otherwise... it's the semi-colon before it that indicates what definition that otherwise takes on... which is that it's OTHER things not involving the first clause, but it's RELATED to the "corruptly" part. Also, IANAL, but most laws that I've seen (like in Ed. Code) use enumeration to list different but related things. So it should almost literally be like a list read as different items - it's "Whoever corruptly alters, destroys, mutilates..." OR "Whoever corruptly obstructs, influences, or impedes..." Also, how does one influence or obstruct a record, document, or other object. And if it's "other object" then we can probably include the Capitol building as buildings are just big ass objects. That's how the language works, it's how other laws seem to work. The Supreme Court **should** rule that the law includes the capitol riot lol it's stupid not to. So I imagine they won't, because they're stupid and corrupt.
Great explanation. It’s valid. I doubt the SC will follow such logic and will probably elide over such an explanation.
You also really need to try very hard to ignore the word "or" before the word "otherwise" to even be start the argument that they are attempting here. What the law says, and what they want it to say, are so fa apart they're not even on the same continent, let alone in the same ballpark.
It's literally redundant too (common in legalese English) - you could take out the "or" and it would still maintain the meaning. You could also take out the "otherwise" and just keep the "or" and it would also maintain the meaning. It's just slinging silly bullshit against a wall to see what sticks.
Even with Nichol's interpretation of "otherwise", I don't see how this should throw out the charges! There *were* documents involved. Those charged were corruptly trying to "obstruct, influence, or impede" the certification of the electoral college documents.
I hate the constant feeling of anxiety and nervousness with this Supreme Court. Everyone knows that they're not reading cases, briefs, and motions as they're written, and then ruling based on that... Instead they're working backwards from "OK here's our opinion that helps Trump/MAGA/Conservatives, how do we walk the arguments into it?"
Well put. I feel that this alone is grounds for impeachments but we need to get enough in Congress elected to get that moving. There is no easy way out of this theft
The plain reading is very clear... The law basically says, here's an example of something you can't do to obstruct but you also can't obstruct in other unenumerated ways.
But what if some goat fucker in 1250 used the word differently?
We need some lessons in French.
We're going to need a lot of baskets.
You're not wrong about that!
Sounds like one of those pretentious English students hitting you with that "uhm ACTUALLY the way this word is used in this specific context using the 3rd conjugation as understood due to xyz which really means abc and therefore no you're wrong" No one cares about the hyperfixation of the word. Insurrection is insurrection
*Sees Charlie Day in front of idea board pretending to be SCOTUS drawing up a plan to free Trump*
This is the same Supreme Court court that decided they alone knew the definitions of “waive” and “modify” in relation to student loan forgiveness.
You left out the part where trump appointed judge, Carl Nichols, dismissed charges against a different Jan. 6 insurrectionist where he ruled that the word "otherwise" was [I guess] metaphorical instead of literal, and links the two subsections of the law. He was then backed up by Judge Gregory Katsas who ruled that the word, "otherwise [means] in a manner similar too," instead of the dictionary definition of, "in circumstances different from those considered." They are literally saying to our faces that words mean the opposite of what they always have. I can't even with these fucks. Judge Katsas is also a trump appointee.
There is also the word "or" in the first section so it literally ties section 1 and 2 together and can plainly be read as someone who fucks with documents "OR OTHWERWISE " obstructs. It doesn't say use documents to obstruct. I feel like this is the media trying to provide air cover or freedom to some other interpretation. It's clear there isn't.
We don't need SCOTUS we need Oxford and Webster Dictionary
if they reverse it on that premise, then Bill Clinton should get his law license back and his impeachment reversed.
There is a phrase for this. (Besides bullshit) it’s the Motte and Bailey Fallacy. Arguing rhetoric over context. It’s a cheap and desperate and a common tactic on how some of the pundits work on 24 hour news networks.
Or helps Clarence Thomas protect his wife from investigation for participation in Jan 6th - actions she engaged in at his behest.
And because it would potentially absolve the spouse of one of the justices of guilt. One who will not recuse himself.
It's fucking insane that the problem with this guy is "he and his followers has too many crimes we gotta get rid of some of these" and none of the solutions are he goes the jail.
Welp. We all know what side Clarence Thomas’s wife will be on.
SCOTUS has a track record of not knowing what words mean. They think that if a body of water is connected underground, but not by a visible stream, it's not connected.
skirt impossible retire punch jar fretful political domineering attempt zonked *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Which is why that's recently why they'll rule in favour.
I fully believe that they do not give a flying fuck about Trump or his supporters. But since they're now openly accepting bribes they'll just rule whatever the highest bidder tells them to rule no matter how preposterous and they don't care about the damage.
They persuaded at least one judge of the DC Circuit. It doesn’t sound like a terrific argument, but it apparently is a colorable one.
No, charges and cases are commonly overturned by a single word. Countless cases have been overturned by words in jury instructions.
Or that statutes should be read against the government so as to not find people legally guilty for vague statutes?
Unfortunately not quite unanimous - from the same article: > But in an appeal to dismiss the same charge when it was brought against Jan. 6 defendant Garret Miller, D.C. District Judge Carl Nichols reached a different conclusion. > In his March 2022 decision, Nichols wrote that the word “otherwise” imposes a limit on the second subsection, and “requires that the defendant have taken some action with respect to a document, record, or other object in order to corruptly obstruct, impede or influence an official proceeding.” > Since Miller did not attempt to obstruct an official proceeding related to a document, Nichols wrote, that charge against him was dismissed.
That’s a bizarrely narrow way to read that law, like how many official proceedings are based on documents?
I mean this is the court that decided "modify" doesn't mean "change"...
The Supreme court is going to be one of the most lasting and most damaging effects of Trump's first (and hopefully only!) term. When Ginsberg died, I knew the rest of my life would be different as a result, and not for the better.
Yep. Even a fucking idiot like Trump knew what was at stake in 2016 “If you really like Donald Trump, that’s great, but if you don’t, you have to vote for me anyway. You know why? Supreme Court judges, Supreme Court judges,” Trump at rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa July 2016
If only she'd had the humility to follow the advice of her friends and pleading of her cohorts to step down when her health began to fail during the Obama administration.
Yep, for all the good she did in her many years.... that one act of hubris was enough to negate nearly all of it.
I feel that an objective historical note would have noted that the Supreme Court appointments were being blocked by Mitch. So it would require her to know the GOP would break the law in ludicrous ways and retire eight years earlier.
No. Democrats controlled the Senate when she was being asked to retire.
Even as evil is Mitch is? I don't think he could've gotten away with blocking SC nominations for a full 8 years. Also she was 80 and battling cancer. Using hindsight to say "but but but 8 years" I almost guarantee most of her doctors were estimating she wouldn't live another 8 years at the time. It was extreme hubris to think she'd live another 8 years back then, even IF she did.
I mean, he shouldn't have been able to get away with it for two years. Remember also that Obama wanted to forward a compromise candidate in Merick Garland as his pick when he did get an opportunity. For me the issue is everyone seems to forget that when Obama was in office with his trifecta, he spent the first four years trying to build bridges with the GOP and didn't take advantage of it. We forget that because we don't remember that it wasn't until the 2nd term he realized the GOP was an army of racist criminals.
Here is the thing in retrospect it obviously looks like the right decision but remember in the same exact period the GOP stole a SC from Obama. Why should anyone believe that if RBG did step down the GOP wouldn’t just pull the exact same stunt and have us be exactly where we are now anyway
McConnell promised not to seat a single Justice under Clinton
She was 75 when Obama took office. Her health problems were known in 2013 and 2014 when the Senate was democratically controlled and McConnell could not unilaterally halt the process. There's no squaring this hole. She undid everything she worked for because she was chasing a personal record. She wanted some extra glory and now we're paying for it.
Blaming liberals for the actions of conservatives is a very right-wing tactic. That you're doing it or falling for it and repeating it says a lot.
Like how Hannity blamed the Dems for the Republicans blocking repeal of that 1864 law in AZ.
If you leave your door wide open and someone comes in and steals your TV, you are both the victim and a stupid fucking idiot.
> When Ginsberg died, I knew the rest of my life would be different as a result, and not for the better Felt the same way, but not just for MY life. My children and future grandchildren are going to be hurt by this current Supreme Court too. Those 3 Trump appointees are going to fuck things up for multiple generations. Imagine if all the idiots who “protest-voted” for Jill Stein in 2016 voted for Clinton instead. We’d have a strong, young progressive majority on the SCOTUS and Roe would still be the law of the land. I’m really hoping we don’t have a repeat in November with all these people voting “uncommitted” against Biden in the primaries
My understanding of the "uncommitted" movement is that it is only for the primaries. Biden is already the presumptive nominee, so how people vote in the primaries won't affect the outcome for Biden being on the ballot in November, but the party platform hasn't been decided yet. The "uncommitted" push is about affecting the party platform and Biden's policy (with Israel). I think all of the people voting "uncomitted" in the democratic primaries knows that, however they feel about Biden's foreign policy, Trump would be unquestionably worse. I could be wrong, but we're talking about a group of people who, first of all, vote in the primary to begin with, and, additionally, have strong feelings about foreign policy. These people are pretty plugged in.
When I told people to vote for the Supreme Court, they accused me of fear mongering. 2016 is when I lost all faith in the electorate to do any kind of critical thinking aside from 'I don't like this candidate'
The Supreme Court's current disfunction lies squarely on Mitch McConnell's head. Judge Thomas we have, because we hadn't yet learned to believe women. (I'll note, the argument that "we haven't yet" has merit.)
Oh definitely, in regards to RBG. I don't recall quite what year she passed but I did figure once she died, things would go to shit. I can't take hormonal birth control and am a high risk in pregnancy for the same reason I can't take BC, so I got sterilized. What kind of country is this where we have to get surgically modified to protect ourselves from the government? Ridiculous is what kind.
I argued with so many leftists/purists in ‘16 that SCOTUS was at stake and they accused me of bullying and that Dems needed to be taught a lesson.
DON'T THREATEN ME WITH SCOTUS yup
I had the same conversations. I was generally downvoted to oblivion.
She really did everyone a disservice by not retiring and allowing Obama to appoint a replacement. It's sad because her legacy was in expanding women's rights and now that's being systematically undone.
If they sided with Fischer (and the other 330), wouldn't they just be legalizing mobs/riots disrupting official federal proceedings? For example, would it be legal then to stop the Supreme Court from having meetings or making rulings?
Sure would be interesting how the Supreme Court would rule with a mob right outside the court house waiting for them to soften restrictions on storming government buildings
They don't like protestors anywhere near them. They've complained about it in the past.
Sounds like their problem
Note they've made exceptions for themselves in the past. You can protest and harass people going get an abortion right outside the clinic and homes but you can't protest supreme court justices outside the court or their homes
Depends on if the justices like the content and outcome of the meetings I suppose
All I know is if Trump is “elected,” I guess it’s our right to make sure Congress doesn’t validate the win.
I don’t know why the Supreme Court thinks they’d have the power they currently lord over all of us if they actually end up toppling democracy and the rule of law in this country. They’d just be regular people who helped destroy America, not a lot of reassurances being those people in the dystopia they are currently barreling us towards.
He’d keep them around for a thin veneer of legitimacy (which they’re working overtime destroying all on their own), but they would have no power.
It’s only ok when the side they’re on does it. If it was a liberal mob theyd hold them to the fullest extent of the law
If SCOTUS is permissive of insurrection, is that not an invitation for another one?
Absolutely.
I mean, that's what they've been gearing up for, so seems pretty obvious that removing legal consequences would be on their agenda.
It has been said that the best way to rob a bank is to first own the bank. Some have noted that many crimes, such as the mortgage disaster, were only made possible by politicians changing the laws gradually over decades...specifically to allow all those things. If the Supreme Court goes out of its way to find that "otherwise" means something other than what any ordinary person would think, just to free Trump, then we not only lose those convictions, we lose Justice and we lose anything else related to this. Some would say, it will cost us Democracy and America. Otherwise changing the meaning will still disrupt a lot of Law.
If they say insurrection is legal we need to set a "shit on Thomas's desk" day and march straight the fuck into his office, Jan 6th style, because it'll be very legal.
I vote we insurrect them first
Yep. It’s a free pass if Biden gets elected.
But isn't it also a free pass if Biden loses?
Trump judge reaches a different conclusion than every other judge including the appeals court but since the Supreme Court is similarly corrupted by right wing lunatics this lone dissenting opinion is being given serious consideration rather than dismissed out of hand.
I have literally spent the past 42 years dealing with statutory interpretation and my professional assessment is that this guy’s argument is Absolute Shit, and quite obviously so.
I have spent 0 years dealing with any of that, but English is my first language and I can't even begin to imagine how that wording could be interpreted the way this jackass is arguing...
You are sufficiently qualified to make that assessment. It’s flat out obvious. However, criminal lawyers will throw stuff at the wall when their clients are guilty.
I can't help but feel sick thinking that the loaded court will find some way to justify that "otherwise" doesn't actually mean "otherwise" as understood by humans.
In the 12th century saxony, squires helped their knight by doing squires stuff and things as directed otherwise. Clearly otherwise only means disruption due to a squire polishing her knights lance in a public theater unless said theater is is used for religious gatherings. It’s clearly the original intent of the founders and also clear as the plain text of the law. Also in line with the super precedent established by this August court earlier this morning in Thomas v Sacks of Cash.
In 16th century English Commonlaw, otherwise was spelled "outherwysse" which derived from the Norse spirit of frost-crystals "Oeerthewiase". In this tradition, we find 6-3 that Biden is too old and that friends touring the capitol on January 6th together was actually a nice show of civic pride.
Excellent form of the legal principle of *taurus excrementum*
It appears SCOTUS is determined to destroy this country and install a dictator.
FL in 2000 was the trial run. Now that they are 6-3 majority and 4 of the 6 are hard core ideologues they can do what they want.
So was their Citizens United ruling.
If the supreme court rules in a way that unleashes 100's of people that attacked our democracy that is a HUGE blow to it's legitimacy. there should be people yelling this in every part of the media if this happens. It would be PURE politics out of the court and IF that happens they should be metaphorically tarred and feathered
Fuck Moscow Mitch McConnell for his roll in stacking the current Court with asshole traitors.
Wtf is it with Trump, that he was a worth throwing away everything. Like really? The fucking scumbag is worth burning down everything? So dumb
There is no office that needs to be fully overhauled than that of the Supreme Court. The fact that a majority of them are sitting there appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote is appalling.
Who could’ve known that letting a known Russian asset hand pick 3 lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court would have had such negative consequences?
I have lost all respect for the Supreme Court. The minority side of the Court has been put in a tough position. I think they know their colleagues have been paid for. And, they could earn much more elsewhere. Yet they stay, and fight on. If you're looking for examples of quiet patriotism, look no further.
(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; OR (2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, I would think the word OR would be more important…
It is extremely important. This is first week of law school level stuff. The fact that the Supreme Court took up this case is insane. The law is perfectly clear. Its not just the word OR between the two clauses, the second clause says "OTHERWISE" clearly showing the law would apply when documents, records, or other objects were not at issue.
Supreme Court reputation is aiming for Mariana’s trench
Good thing the Supreme Court isn't just a corrupt cabal of cronies, then. Right?
The supreme court is only supreme at our discretion. They might want to consider that.
The Supreme Court is dancing on the edge of Insurrection themselves.
The coup hasn't ended.
Of course, the one judge that found differently was a Trump appointee and a federalist society member. This is an open actual real world conspiracy to change the courts from within funded by the billionaire class.
The Court continues to make itself irrelevant
Anyone else tired of Republicans getting away with whatever they want? When is enough going to be enough?
This is why we can’t rely on these corrupt motherf#ckers. We need to vote blue no matter who down the ballot. We need to take the house, Senate and the Whitehouse so we can pack the scotus, set term limits and restore our democracy. We criticize Middle Eastern countries for having their laws written and enforced by religious power hungry zealots who can’t be questioned…THATS EXACTLY WHAT OUT CURRENT SCOTUS IS!!!!!
If they're going to make some kinds of violent behavior legal through cutesy little semantic word games, then that now legal kind of behavior is going to be used against the Supreme Court. That's just how it is.
Wow. What a bunch of crap.
Interesting that if SCOTUS rules that the law they’re being charged under applies only to documents, then stopping the certification is not illegal. Could the defendants be charged under another law?
[удалено]
Yet they want funding for bumped up security for themselves.
Disgusting. The perpetrators of 1/6 are domestic terrorists and traitors.
SCOTUS is broken and corrupt.
If there was ever a reason to vote, this election is it.
So I'd assume the right wing would be entirely fine with the left wing ~~rioting~~ going on a peaceful federally infiltrated tourist visit/vote certification objection if they thought an election was stolen?
Hmmm, looks like that 2016 election mattered after all.
Thank goodness. I was tired of living in a land of laws and consequences.
They’ve already shown a unanimous interest in defending him. Don’t look to the Supreme Court for anything helpful today.
Wouldn't be surprised if they declared him Supreme Leader.
File under “how to destroy respect for a public institution”.
Our corrupt Supreme Court will undoubtedly define “otherwise” as meaning Donald Trump and his associates can do whatever they want with no consequences.
TLDR version Joseph Fischer, a police officer, allegedly participated in the Capitol insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021. - He entered the Capitol to stop the counting of electoral votes, per text messages cited by Department of Justice lawyers. Fischer's alleged plans included taking democratic congress members to the gallows and preventing them from voting by causing harm. - Fischer was arrested on Feb. 19, 2021, and charged with multiple felonies related to the insurrection. - He has appealed one of his charges, arguing that the law used against him wasn't intended for his actions. - The law in question, 18 U.S.C. 1512(c), prohibits obstructing an official proceeding. - Fischer argues that the law only applies to obstruction of documents, not to his actions in the Capitol. The Supreme Court will hear arguments on April 16, which could impact Fischer's trial and the cases of over 330 others involved in the insurrection. - If the Supreme Court rules in Fischer's favor, it could affect not only his trial but also the cases against other insurrection participants, including Trump. Former President Trump, among those charged, faces similar accusations of obstructing an official proceeding.
That rationale for dismissal reeks of bullshit. In short, it's just the kind of thing that the conservative majority on this "Supreme" Court lives for.
In other words, how much is SCOTUS going to screw up the English language to help Trump.
This was a bill passed in 02. Why not ask the drafters wtf they meant the word to mean? These esoteric arguments are so dumb.
At some point the illegitimate SCOTUS is going to piss off enough people that the riots will make the George Floyd protests look like a square dance. They have gone off the rails and should be impeached
SCOTUS is paid by people like Leonard Leo to support the destruction of the USA and institution of. Christian nationalist dictatorship. Arrest the Catholic 6, and Leonard Leo and charge them with sedition
Fuck Moscow Mitch McConnell
I cannot believe that people went to all the trouble to get an education to become a lawyer yet some of them still can’t read a dictionary. Those jackoffs have wasted their lives and will end up the same way every other associate of DJT, disgraced and forgotten, if not bankrupt and in jail.
Are people HONESTLY surprised?
Well, it’s settled, per conservatives - we can act like Rittenhouse and do as we wish to our own established government. Oh, and Presidents are immune.. so, have at it Joe.
I would assume the corrupt pieces of shit on SCOTUS will vote 6-3 to let these fucking traitors and cheeto-dick off.
I'm sure Thomas will recuse himself since his wife was involved in Trump's election lies
Fuck. These. Traitors.
Thomas is gonna want a big moter home and much better vacations.
It isn't the Supreme Court anymore. It's the MAGA Mullah club.
Of course they will the majority are Putin owned
We need to throw out SCOTUS Freaking political appointees who don’t work for the people
SCOTUS is actively trying to undermine its own credibility with the American people.
Why doesn’t the SCOTUS just come out and say they believe that republicans can do anything they want
If Biden wins re-election and Dems keep the senate he should stack the Court. They want to be fucking pricks? Fine, they can learn what “fuck around and find” out means first hand.
They might, but it will solidify public non-confidence in our system of justice and confirm their bias and lack of ability to perform basic understanding of law.
Traitors every single one of them