Justice Gorsuch Lays Waste to the Biden Administration's Argument for Jail Sentences

[Billiejeens]

Those of us who are not blind understand exactly what is going on here. Trump is also charged with obstruction of an official proceeding. If the Court's conservatives can find a way to reduce Don's criminal exposure in the Jan. 6 case they will obediently do so.

The overwhelming majority of judges have read the obstruction statute broadly enough to encompass the January 6 defendants. As the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit noted in its opinion saying that Fischer could be charged under this statute, several federal appellate courts “have applied the statute to reach a wide range of obstructive acts.”

Similarly, of the 15 federal trial judges who’d heard January 6 cases, “no fewer than fourteen district judges in this jurisdiction have adopted the broad reading of the statute urged by the government to uphold the prosecution of defendants who allegedly participated in the Capitol riot.” Of these 15 judges, only Judge Carl Nichols, the judge who heard Fischer’s case, disagreed with this consensus view.

The Supreme Court will weigh in on the January 6 insurrection. What could possibly go wrong?

The Court’s decision could potentially undermine over 300 January 6 prosecutions, including Trump’s.

www.vox.com

Vox!
Leave your echo chamber Cultist.

 

[Billiejeens]

Let's be specific. The conservatives in Don's pocket will try to justify a ruling in his favor.

The legal system as directed by The Constitution will prevail.

 

[berg80]

Prelogar sounded like a 2nd year law student.

Your opinion is worthless,

 

[Billiejeens]

Your opinion is worthless,

Well, it will have at least 5, maybe 6 SCOTUS Justices concur with it.

 

[kyzr]

Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar, defending the Justice Department, told the court in filings that the second clause should be read as a “catchall” that ensures that “unanticipated methods of corruptly obstructing an official proceeding — like occupying the Capitol building and forcing the suspension of Congress’s joint session certifying the election results — are prohibited, while giving a judge discretion to tailor the punishment to the crime.”
The word “otherwise” means “in a different manner,” Prelogar wrote, and makes clear that Congress intended to prohibit obstruction broadly, beyond the destruction of records or documents listed in the first section of the law. You, as a dumbass, are always wrong.

Gorsuch trumps Prelogar dumbass.

 

[kyzr]

What we have are FOXNEWS watching, MAGA loving, hard rightwing, corrupt, activist judges that have infested our Supreme Court.

We're living in dangerous times.

Typing more lies? Prove what you say, or its just typing democrat nonsense.
Like the moon is made of gas, or Guam can capsize...

 

[postman]

Once SCOTUS rules appropriately on this it throws half of Jack Smith's charges right in the trash bin.

Numerically yes, but defendants were charged with several crimes, including obstruction. So few if any, will get a "get out of jail" free card.

 

[postman]

Prelogar sounded like a 2nd year law student.

Not good.

But she knows the meaning of words, otherwise she would have disagreed with the district and appeals court judges.

 

[Billiejeens]

But she knows the meaning of words, otherwise she would have disagreed with the district and appeals court judges.

Unfortunately for her, she knows them less well than SCOTUS does.

 

[Marener]

The statute isn’t ambiguous. Conservatives on SCOTUS are here to tell us that the words in the law don’t actually mean what they clearly mean.

 

[Billiejeens]

The statute isn’t ambiguous. Conservatives on SCOTUS are here to tell us that the words in the law don’t actually mean what they clearly mean.

I agree that it is not ambiguous.
Sit tight.

 

[BlindBoo]

All they have to do is ignore the law

(c) 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,

It wouldn't surprise me if the Hack Court does ignore that provision of the law however.

 

[kyzr]

The statute isn’t ambiguous. Conservatives on SCOTUS are here to tell us that the words in the law don’t actually mean what they clearly mean.

Typing lies doesn't help. WTF specifically are conservative justices misinterpreting? Factor in that democrats are stupid.

 

[kyzr]

All they have to do is ignore the law
(c) 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,
It wouldn't surprise me if the Hack Court does ignore that provision of the law however.

So your interpretation is that conservatives who break the law get 20-years, but democrats who break the law don't get prosecuted.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Those of us who are not blind understand exactly what is going on here. Trump is also charged with obstruction of an official proceeding. If the Court's conservatives can find a way to reduce Don's criminal exposure in the Jan. 6 case they will obediently do so.

The overwhelming majority of judges have read the obstruction statute broadly enough to encompass the January 6 defendants. As the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit noted in its opinion saying that Fischer could be charged under this statute, several federal appellate courts “have applied the statute to reach a wide range of obstructive acts.”

Similarly, of the 15 federal trial judges who’d heard January 6 cases, “no fewer than fourteen district judges in this jurisdiction have adopted the broad reading of the statute urged by the government to uphold the prosecution of defendants who allegedly participated in the Capitol riot.” Of these 15 judges, only Judge Carl Nichols, the judge who heard Fischer’s case, disagreed with this consensus view.

The Supreme Court will weigh in on the January 6 insurrection. What could possibly go wrong?

The Court’s decision could potentially undermine over 300 January 6 prosecutions, including Trump’s.

www.vox.com

Trump wasn't even there!

 

[Lesh]

Taking the White House under, at best, very dubious circumstances and them jailing anyone that questioned those dubious circumstances is a straight-line path to a totalitarian regime.

White House??

 

[Lesh]

Is selective prosecution actually a real defense?

 

[BlindBoo]

So your interpretation is that conservatives who break the law get 20-years, but democrats who break the law don't get prosecuted.

Did the Congressman pull the fire alarm while participating in a violent riot? Was he subverting the non violent transfer of power? What other crimes was he charged with in conjunction with errantly pulling the fire alarm? Didn't he plea guilty?

Rep. Jamaal Bowman pleads guilty to a misdemeanor for pulling a fire alarm in House office building

Democratic congressman Jamaal Bowman has pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count for triggering a fire alarm as lawmakers scrambled to pass a funding bill before a government shutdown deadline in September.

apnews.com

The alarm forced the evacuation of a House office building for over an hour on Sept. 30. The New York lawmaker acknowledged pulling the alarm but said it was a mistake as he tried to open an unexpectedly locked door in a rush to get to vote. The funding package was ultimately approved with most Republicans and almost all Democrats, including Bowman, supporting the bill.

“I really regret that this caused so much confusion and that people had to evacuate, and I just caused a disturbance. I hate that. It’s pretty embarrassing,” Bowman told reporters after his plea hearing.

Sad that the SC would stoop to such a specious argument to protect the Benedict Donald.

 

[Marener]

Typing lies doesn't help. WTF specifically are conservative justices misinterpreting? Factor in that democrats are stupid.

18 USC 1512c2 isn’t ambiguous and doesn’t need any interpreting.

The plain text clearly applies to Jan 6th rioters.

 

[Billiejeens]

Is selective prosecution actually a real defense?

Not in a post Constitutional society, but you haven't gotten us there just yet.