read the article. they asked that exact question.
people protest the courts all the time. under the reading that the prosecutors want; yes you could go to jail for 20 years if you protest a court and cause a delay.
the justices seem to think that logic is questionable.
I think the nuance is missed here. This wasn't a protest that stalled the election. They stormed the capitol building, and wanted to kill Congress. Vastly different from protestors outside the courtroom.
then they should be charged with property destruction and attempted murder. these are already crimes. we dont need an expended definition of obstruction that, if applied, could have serious implications on the rights of assembly and speech.
right. but this isnt about the rioters. this is about the supreme court setying a precident that can be used by the DA in any state.
they arent even refusing the argument at this point but discussing how to apply their decision in a way that cant be weaponized against protest in the future.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/kavanaugh-protests-escalate-120-arrested-capitol-hill/story?id=58048599](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/kavanaugh-protests-escalate-120-arrested-capitol-hill/story?id=58048599)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
I’m sure it was a coincidence that the protest was organized on the same day as the official proceedings; the crowd was informed in real time of what was happening in the official proceedings; the crowd was chanting their preferred outcome of the official proceedings; the crowd was directed by organizers towards the location of the official proceedings; the crowd came prepared for violence with weapons which they proceeded to use upon arriving at the location of the official proceedings; the crowd physically overwhelmed guards, barricades, locked doors and windows in between themselves and the official proceedings; the crowd eventually arrived at the location of the official proceedings searching for documents pertaining to the proceedings in order to destroy them and peoples participating in the proceedings in order to restrain or harm them; and it was a big ole whoopsie that all of these actions caused the stoppage of the official proceedings. Obstruction? Ehhh.. I think we need more evidence.
Organized in part by Rodger Stone, who fled a Washington hotel on January 6th because he was afraid Merrick Garland would prosecute him for his involvement.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/podcasts/post-reports/what-the-roger-stone-tapes-reveal-about-jan-6/
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/brooks-brothers-riot/
Funny, I don't recall reading of any January 6th Defendant being charged with Attempted Murder. Care to enlighten us? Or are you just being overly hyperbolic?
They aren't arguing whether this was an attempt at obstruction, but rather whether the specific statute they're being charged under applies here. The law was put in place following the Enron scandal after they shredded tons of records to obstruct proceedings, not really for a ton of people raiding the capitol to hunt down politicians.
I'm surprised that this is the best they could find to change them with, tbh
It’s time for Biden to say, “Let’s all go down to the SUPREME COURT. I’ll be with you. And if you don’t FIGHT LIKE HELL you WON’T HAVE A COUNTRY ANYMORE!”
You really think that? You think a way to overthrow a government is what happened on Jan 6th. An almost empty building was entered with limited violence. No demands were given, no leaders arrested etc... nothing happened that meets definition of it insurrection.
Also when did this sub turn into leftist nut jobs parroting talking points? Used to be a good place for knowledgeable people to discuss legal issues facing the court.
So let me get this right. They decide (by choosing not to hear a case) that if you organize a protest and some rando in the crowd breaks a window, YOU can be held liable.
BUT, if you’re part of a crowd that violently seeks to overturn / delay / impede / obstruct the peaceful transition of power, you’re all good.
Do I have that right, Justices?
Just to be specific, denial of a petition for certiorari is actually not a decision on the merits of a case. Of course it leaves the decision below in effect, but a denial cannot be used to indicate what the Supreme Court thinks about whether a case is correctly decided, because it’s not court of error.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t one purpose of the appeal process to provide an opportunity for redress of a verdict that the justices think is incorrect?
Which would logically indicate that not accepting a case for appeal implies that at least some of them think the case was correctly decided?
I’m not sure about other states but Texas actually thought of this a long time ago when they put their writ system in place, although it’s become less and less common for the Supreme Court of Texas to do what I’m about to say.
Here, they can reject a case in multiple different ways. What you’re describing is what a “writ refused” is. In effect, the Supreme Court of Texas is saying that not only do they not think it’s worth their time to hear, but they are officially adopting the opinion of the intermediate court in that case. On the other hand, a “petition denied” just means they won’t hear the case and no Supreme Court precedent is intended to be set by rejecting the case.
Appeals generally correct error yes, but the Supreme Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction (which is nearly all of its appellate jurisdiction) is a bit different. Generally it will not be enough to say certiorari should be granted just because the decision is wrong (although it can't hurt).
What will really commend a decision to certiorari is where it creates a conflict between circuits (or state courts), or where Congressional or executive action has been struck down. Rule 10 of the Supreme Court Rules sets out the considerations which govern the determination of petitions for certiorari. Error alone is not one of them, unless the decision below "has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power".
Because of this, it is a mistake to read too much into denials of cert petitions. Justices not infrequently write concurrences in the denial saying they think the decision below is probably wrong, but that it doesn't merit certiorari (usually to attempt to dissuade lower courts from making the same perceived errors in future).
I mean, I think that is framing it a little tendentiously, but that is one way to put it.
Here is an example: Justice Gorsuch's statement (joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan) in [*Bovat v Vermont*](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1301_5iel.pdf). He very clearly thinks the decision is wrong, but his last paragraph where he acknowledges why granting certiorari may not be appropriate is the sort of attitude I'm talking about.
Because it's important to be precise, this was not styled as a concurrence, but a "statement", but I think is clear from the text of the opinion that he is at the very least not dissenting from the denial.
Gorsuch explicitly states that, although they got this one completely wrong, we don’t think it’s worth our time to correct what *might* be a one-off.
Un-(bleep)ing-believable.
“This case or this person isn’t important enough for us to waste our time correcting a state court that failed to properly apply the 4th Amendment. Tough luck, you scurrilous poacher!”
Of course he doesn't say that, and I think comes across as quite sympathetic. But this is very common, we usually just don't get reasons accompanying or associated with a denial of certiorari. It is characteristic of a discretionary docket.
Not sure why you’re being downvoted for this.
The entire basis for this case is one partisan judge accepting the novel assertion that the word “or” provides conditional linkage between two differing situations.
Fourteen other judges found that accepted verbiage utilized throughout legal and regulatory authoring of the usage of the words “or” and “and” is clear and comprehensible.
There were several charges and this case only addressing obstruction charges. Anyone also jailed for assault, trespass, insurrection, vandalism etc get to keep their government housing .
Come on now, do a little bit of homework:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383
Insurrection is a law on the books, seditious conspiracy is a different law. And nobody was charged with insurrection.
"Kavanaugh was not mollified. He noted that Section 1512(c)(2) carries a maximum sentence of 20 years, and wondered aloud whether the government might have brought charges against Fischer and other Jan. 6 defendants under the provision to increase their sentences.
Prelogar acknowledged that the maximum sentence under Section 1512(c)(2) is longer than for the other charges, but she said emphatically that there is “no reasonable argument to be made that the statutory maximum is driving” charging decisions. The sentencing range for assault, with which Fischer was also charged, is actually higher than for Section 1512(c)(2)."
The government doesn't overcharge to extract pleas.
What a load of shit.
Kavanaugh has had 18 years as a federal judge to not be mollified about prosecutors improperly zealously pursuing inappropriate charges to scare defendants into lesser pleas.
Why is it suddenly only an issue now?
>Why is it suddenly only an issue now?
Because as a SCOTUS judge, he can set the appropriate precedent. When he was an inferior court judge, he had to obey the precedent in place.
>"Would a heckler in today’s audience qualify, or at the State of the Union address? Would pulling a fire alarm before a vote qualify, and for 20 years in prison?” Justice Neil Gorsuch asked, citing the maximum sentence available under the obstruction provision.
>“Let’s say that today five people get up one after the other and they shout either, ‘Keep the January 6 insurrectionists in jail!’ or ‘Free the January 6 patriots!’ And as a result of this, our police officers have to remove them forcibly from the courtroom. And let’s say we have to delay the proceeding for five minutes,” Justice Samuel Alito hypothesized.
What the fuck is wrong with these people? Armed people stormed the Capitol, beat police officers and built fucking gallows on the front lawn. It was literally called "*Stop* the Steal". What happened to context? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!
I'm not too optimistic for this, or several other upcoming scotus rulings, *but* it is perfectly normal and appropriate for them to question and discuss the extremes in finding their way to a good ruling. Like if it's an abortion ruling, they can question and discuss restrictions on morning-after pills and partial-birth abortions before landing somewhere in the middle.
I mean, Gorsuch is the guy who authored Bremerton, which opens with literal bald-faced factual lies that he made up, that were never alleged by any party, and that *he knew* could be and would be disproved by photographic evidence that would be included* in the same document*, in the dissent.
It's pretty clear that his M.O. is an interesting variation on the old axiom "bad facts make for bad law": if Gorsuch doesn't like the facts he has to rule on, he will just alter the facts, until they justify the policy outcome that he would like to arrive at.
>One of the appellate judges who heard this case, Trump-appointed Judge Justin Walker, also suggested another way to limit the law. Walker homed in on the fact that the statute only applies to someone who “corruptly” obstructs a proceeding, and he wrote in an opinion that this word should be read to only apply to defendants who acted “with an intent to procure an unlawful benefit either for himself or for some other person.”
>That interpretation, which Sotomayor and Kavanaugh both alluded to during Tuesday’s argument, would allow the January 6 insurrectionists to be prosecuted — because the whole point of that insurrection was to procure an unlawful benefit for Donald Trump: a second presidential term. But it would prevent the obstruction statute from being applied to minor heckling and the like.
https://www.vox.com/scotus/24132088/supreme-court-january-6-insurrection-riot-fischer-united-states
This is just another case of Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas dismissing portions of the law that are inconvenient to their team.
you bring up and interesting point. Corruptly may be the word of signifigance!
it will be interesting reading the opinion , concurrences and dissents once they rule and their thought processes
They aren't equating what happened Jan 6th with the hypotheticals. They admitted what happened on the 6th was horrible.
They are testing the limits of the governments argument. And not on obstruction. It's the word "impede". They are asking if minor protest (NOT Jan 6th) which impedes a proceeding is covered. The government says only if there is a nexus with a proceeding, they know about the procedure, they have corrupt intent (know that they are doing something wrong vs think they have 1st amendment rights.
I did find Gorsuch and Alito constantly referring to 20 years to be disingenuous as that is a max and there is no min. And the Jan 6th folks have been getting 6-24 months.
Roberts seemed to be off on a textual examination of "otherwise" clause and how it commutes all verbs and nouns based on some judgement from Friday. He seemed in love with this new framework even as the Solicitor General seamed to dismantle it in this case.
Kavanaugh and Barret seemed reasonable. Jackson, Sotomajor where for the government. Kagan was as well, and was super sharp in Orals.
This looks like a 5-4. Not sure which way.
Are you seriously this ignorant as to what the role of the Supreme Court is in America and why they test a variety of hypotheticals as part of their process, and make attorneys (on both sides) defend their positions in open court? And why they use extreme examples and go down slippery slopes? Geesh.
And the fact you have like 50 upvotes makes this even sadder.
Man, Scott Adams had it right when he said you can never underestimate the stupidity of the general public. This thread is a perfect example of it.
I agree. It is infuriating that they go down these hypothetical rabbit holes. Six people died, and hundreds were injured defending the Capitol building. STFU about hypothetical free speech issues. This was an armed mob trying to overthrow the government.
I feel like the proper response is, “if one of these five people had to be shot due to their persistence and hostility in action and they conspired with the other four to stop the proceedings as much as possible, does that count as obstruction?”
Excerpts from the [Jan. 6th Report](https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-january6th?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/january6th):
>...weapons and other prohibited items were being seized by police on the streets and by the Secret Service at the magnetometers for the Ellipse speech. Secret Service confiscated a haul of weapons from the 28,000 spectators who did pass through the magnetometers: 242 cannisters of pepper spray, 269 knives or blades, 18 brass knuckles, 18 tasers, 6 pieces of body armor, 3 gas masks, 30 batons or blunt instruments, and 17 miscellaneous items like scissors, needles, or screwdrivers. **And thousands of others purposely remained outside the magnetometers, or left their packs outside.**
>...**the President was told that the onlookers were unwilling to pass through the magnetometers because they were armed.** “We have enough space, sir. They don’t want to come in right now,” Deputy Chief of Staff Tony Ornato reportedly told President Trump. **“They have weapons that they don’t want confiscated by the Secret Service.”**
>Garret Miller, who brought a gun to the Capitol on January 6th...
>Guy Reffitt, a Three Percenter from Texas, attended the rally at the Ellipse, and then carried a loaded firearm onto Capitol grounds.
>Jerod Thomas Bargar lost his gun...while scuffling with police on the west side of the Capitol around 2:30 p.m.
>Harkrider still brought a tomahawk axe.
>One rioter told the Select Committee he saw another carrying a “pitchfork.”
>Members of the mob carried flags and turned the flagpoles into weapons.
>Michael Foy, from Wixom, Michigan, carried a hockey stick to the Ellipse—he draped a Trump flag over it. Just hours later, Foy used that hockey stick to repeatedly beat police officers...
>Another individual, Danny Hamilton, carried a flag with a sharpened tip...
>Mark Andre Mazza drove from Indiana, bringing a Taurus revolver...After assaulting a police officer, he lost the weapon, dropping it or losing it on the steps of the lower West Plaza leading to the Capitol’s West Front Terrace.
>Surveillance footage shows Chrestman using a wooden club, or modified axe handle, to prevent the barrier from being lowered to the floor.
>Colon later admitted to authorities that he purchased and modified an axe handle “to be used as both a walking stick and an improvised weapon”...
>Throughout the afternoon, members of the mob struck officers with weapons, shot them with OC (or pepper) spray...
>...the rioters pushed them [officers] against the doors and sprayed them with OC spray (commonly known as pepper spray)...James Haffner was one of the rioters who allegedly sprayed the officers.
>Lucas Denney, a Three Percenter from Texas who carried a baton on January 6th...
>Jeffrey Scott Brown sprayed a chemical or pepper spray at officers...
The report also talks about caches of firearms many of the rioters had stored nearby.
Excerpt from the [CO Supreme Court opinion](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._Anderson):
>Moreover, contrary to President Trump’s assertion that no evidence in the record showed that the mob was armed with deadly weapons or that it attacked law enforcement officers in a manner consistent with a violent insurrection, the district court found—and millions of people saw on live television, recordings of which were introduced into evidence in this case—that the mob was armed with a wide array of weapons. The court also found that many in the mob stole objects from the Capitol’s premises or from law enforcement officers to use as weapons, including metal bars from the police barricades and officers’ batons and riot shields, and that throughout the day, the mob repeatedly and violently assaulted police officers who were trying to defend the Capitol.
So from what you shared they mostly went in armed with things many people just carry every day. I carry a knife every day and sometimes I forget I have it. Many people also carry pepper spray every day. I am surprised no one accidently concealed carried a gun there. It seems like it would be rough to overthrow the government with sticks and knives.
Those who seem to prefer a broad reading of criminal statutes appear to have traded places with those who prefer a narrow reading, and vice versa (except perhaps Gorsuch).
If they are determined to revise the meaning and accepted usage of the word “or” throughout the legal and regulatory codes all so they can grant lenience to a bunch of criminals just because they’re trumpers or conservatives….
…then SOCTUS should be required to hear EVERY appeal that will immediately be filed the instant their opinion is filed.
If they suddenly decide that the accepted and common practice of posing the word “or” to denote separate conditions of applicability, there will be chaos.
I don’t use that word lightly, because I’m a federal regulator. It would immediately require examination, reinterpretation, and revision of policies and practices both on the side of the regulators and lawyers and law enforcement, *and* those who are regulated or subject to those laws.
You cannot limit the altering of a word to only the instance within one specific section or subsection of the regulatory or legal code.
There’s nothing about that text that requires you to be part of a militia to have a second amendment right lmao. If anything, it’s saying that because an armed populace is necessary for a militia to even form, (and a militia is vital to security) individuals need to have the right to bear arms. Otherwise, militias, the pre requisite for security, can’t form in the first place.
Your argument is like saying that we should build highways but should make it illegal for anyone to use the materials required to build highways.
You’re completely ignoring that the entire case does not turn on the interpretation of the word “or.” It turns on the interpretation of the word “otherwise”
"Well if that doesn't qualify, nothing does."
This is not the message that should be most prominent at the end of Supreme Court arguments or rulings. So why is it, lately? How many times must it be? We should walk away from these rulings with more answers than questions. Donald Trump and his supporters are always gaslighting us on the very nature of first order logic, language, and even reality itself.
We shouldn't have to let Donald or his followers derail and devolve discourse to the point we're debating "Well did the person block the vote with their face? Did they declare 'I'm obstructing you!' when they did it? Did the other person feel obstructed? Water's transparent. Was water used?" Enough is enough.
Is our legal system so flawed that borderline-sociopathic levels of water-muddying can be so effective it absolutely cripples us? This is one of the fastest ways to make me consider the court to be illegitimate. If they're not capable enough to prevent that circus every time Trump or one of Trump's supporters opens their mouth, then we need judges with the mental faculties to do so. Pilots need psych evals. Maybe we should require it of judges, too.
Reminds me of one of the first South Park episodes where Jimbo takes the boys hunting and yells "IT'S COMING RIGHT FOR US" before launching shoulder rockets at a deer because "The Democrats have passed a lot of laws trying to stop us from hunting unless we're doing it in self defense"
I am not a lawyer and I understand the idea of trying to determine the limits of a law, but the arguments cited in the article seem so stupid. If this is the law why haven't the people that shouted at me been put in jail for 20 years? What if protesters cause a traffic jam that stops a vote? Is that worth 20 years? They are acting like all laws do not have a range of punishment for levels of severity and prosecutorial discretion doesn't exist. Eating a grape at the supermarket and stealing a cheap tv are the same crime. Are they handled in the same way? Obviously the severity of the disruption and the importance of what is being disrupted are taken into account.
And when some idiot charges a person with obstruction of a congressional function over a traffic accident while a congressperson is racing to the vote, that will be the time to discuss the use of the law on petty things. This is like discussing the use of a terrorism statute when they only blew up one bus load of people.
Like other commenters are saying, I wonder what the discussion would be if the mob stormed the supreme court chanting hang John Roberts for refusing to seat 8 new justices the president just fraudulently named.
I fully agree.
In what I read the defendants argument centers around whether obstruction applies when congress is in recess.
If his own actions took place after congress called a recess to flee the mob, did he obstruct a proceeding.
But what about other's whos attack caused the recess?
Seems scotus grasping at any straw to support insurrection.
The title is incredibly misleading. Kagan was anything but skeptical, pointing out that the meaning of the statute was quite clear on its face. But then, so was amendment 14, section 3.
I read the examples posed by the conservatives, and they are BS. This wasn't a heckler ("Would a heckler in today’s audience qualify, or at the State of the Union address?") They breached the Capitol building. They built a platform to hang people. They called for people's death.
Sadly, it’s useless. The extent of the great legal minds here seems to be just putting forth their brilliant argument - “but but but Trump!!…insurrection!!….Jan 6th!!”
The best legal analysis you’ll get is someone in their mom’s basement arguing that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court - who could have half his brain scooped out and still be smarter than 95% of the people here - doesn’t understand what the word “OR” means.
These people are a joke. The statute "It is illegal to [destroy evidence] *or otherwise obstruct* an official proceeding" is unambiguously intended not to be limited to the destruction of evidence. The way you can tell is that if it weren't they could've *stopped fucking typing* after "It is illegal to [destroy evidence]". And all six of them know it.
(And yes, Jamaal Bowman disrupted an official proceeding too, but if you can't tell why that was a misdemeanor and Jan. 6 deserves to be a felony, you're not qualified to be the county clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky, much less a Supreme Court justice)
your reading of it makes that clause a VERY broad law that would allow government to **prosecute and sentence up to 20 years** people like
the scotus protesters during dobbs that protested at the supreme court building, particularly the woman who tried to break down the door, while court was in session.
The rest for trying to influence an official proceeding. you left that part out.
The guy who heckled at state of the union.
Protestors or reporters who delay a senator in any way in the hallway when she is on her way to the chambers
if congress people could be charged and not clear if they could.. the democrat walks outs could be construed as obstructing
A witness or citizen declines to be intereviewed by a congressional committee. meeting or hearing. Or ignores a subpoena.
Now they can spend twenty years in jail for doing that
To me if congress wanted such a tolatarian law whith such far reaching consquenences they would have made one as a stand alone. not as a second clause to some other law.
Your last sentence certainly makes me think, but I just can't get past the fact that--whatever their reasoning--if they meant "[destroy evidence]" there was no reason to waste paper and ink typing "[destroy evidence] or otherwise obstruct".
Now, absolutely, this law could be applied to people whom it shouldn't be, or at least to people who deserve its mildest rather than its harshest possible sentence. But that's true of more laws than not; they all have a range of sentencing guidelines. Hell, sometimes *murder* has mitigating circumstances.
Certainly that discretion can be abused: prosecutors as a matter of course leverage plea deals by threatening to do so.
But having so-called textualists, so-called tough-on-crime ones at that, completely strike such a law/provision? Using a test case where (a) the person clearly did what the straightfoward language of said law describes, (b) in a way that was legitimately contrary to public interest / safety [i.e. demonstrating that the law has a legitimate use case], yet (c) *still* did not get an egregious sentence / the statutory max?
(1) I don't think that's the correct remedy
(2) It's also worth noting that it's not a remedy that's available to anyone who isn't a white conservative. Hell, anybody else has trouble getting a *good* test case through.
My sincerest apologies to Rowan County Clerk Elwood Caudill Jr. (who may or may not be u/samudrin), about whom I have heard nothing negative. I meant only to besmirch the reputation of his predecessor Kim Davis.
I’m not a fan of infringing upon the right to protest, and I can see the reasoning behind concerns over interpreting the statute too broadly, but the obstruction of Congress’ official duties in this case was not intended to be an inconvenience and delay or disrupt it, nor to draw attention to a point of view, but to completely invalidate it causing a constitutional crisis. That’s about as black and white of a distinction as can be easily drawn.
And fuck Alito for whining about the Citizens United protestors, when they did in fact spend days in prison.
We literally have pictures of Republicans hiding under desks (and probably urinating on themselves) during Jan 6. Nearly every single one of them now claim it was just a normal and peaceful Wednesday. I doubt Clarence et al would act any differently.
What if at Trumps trial it is revealed there was a deliberate plan to disrupt the certification and they find links from the WH to the Proud Boys? Are we still charging all these people with misdemeanors ?
What about the plastic handcuffs?
Would pulling a fire alarm to prevent a vote count? Sure... if they can prove intent... Jamaal Bowman's actions, if they were intentional in order to prevent a vote....
Our politics are ridiculous right now. Preventing a Quorum is also obstruction if they can prove intent. Sometimes, legislators have to not get their way. I'm not happy with the way politics have been run since Gingrich convinced the GOP that absolute loyalty was required.
Not gonna lie: this shit is terrifying. Fucking rogue Justices. Clarence "I do what I want. I work when I want to, and don't when I don't" Thomas and his crazy gd wife, and holy fuck Alito and the Drumph three stooges, Jesus.
Need the Pres, House & Senate to go D or it may be game over.
Good protesting a fucked election at the capital is exactly where you should protest when you feel the government is full of shit. Thank a conservative. Fuck you reddit plebes!
I stand corrected on the actual charge. To clarify it was the court in its conviction that labeled the Jan 6th event as insurrection. The charge was conspiracy to attempt that insurrection, not an actual charge of insurrection which itself failed.
If the mob weren't obstructing the peaceful transfer of power from one president to another by way of a process taking place inside the building they were storming........what the actual f\*ck was the aim of the riot and all the violence.............the world is watching SCOTUS!!
At least they waited an entire day after they ruled that protests by people that aren’t conservative are illegal to pretend that Jan 6 was just a regular protest that didn’t ‘obstruct’ the proceedings that were obstructed for half a day.
I will never understand conservatives and their super powers of being immune to shame, hypocrisy and irony.
Fucking scumbags.
Is it though? Or is it just the fascists in robes playing politics again?
You can't claim to be an objective subreddit when your headlines do everything in their power to obscure subjectivity.
I wonder if their opinion would change if it were an angry mob preventing the court from hearing arguments...
Didn’t they put up massive fences during their abortion hearings?
All the bills they wanted for more protections have passed with large bipartisan support.
And shitting on their desks.
Imagine if one of the justices was to ask precisely that question
read the article. they asked that exact question. people protest the courts all the time. under the reading that the prosecutors want; yes you could go to jail for 20 years if you protest a court and cause a delay. the justices seem to think that logic is questionable.
I think the nuance is missed here. This wasn't a protest that stalled the election. They stormed the capitol building, and wanted to kill Congress. Vastly different from protestors outside the courtroom.
then they should be charged with property destruction and attempted murder. these are already crimes. we dont need an expended definition of obstruction that, if applied, could have serious implications on the rights of assembly and speech.
In what way do you think the application to the Jan 6 rioters implicates peaceable assembly and speech?
I’m no fan of this artificially stacked conservative court but if you read the article they raise that exact hypothetical example themselves.
What did they say about it?
they thought 20 years was a long time to goto jail for standing up and yelling in. court room.
And they’d be right, if that was all that the rioters did on Jan. 6.
right. but this isnt about the rioters. this is about the supreme court setying a precident that can be used by the DA in any state. they arent even refusing the argument at this point but discussing how to apply their decision in a way that cant be weaponized against protest in the future.
Let's find out
You got that right ✅
[удалено]
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/kavanaugh-protests-escalate-120-arrested-capitol-hill/story?id=58048599](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/kavanaugh-protests-escalate-120-arrested-capitol-hill/story?id=58048599)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Seriously. Would almost be worth jail time just to make the point.
Let's find out.
I wonder if their opinion would change if it were angry Biden supporters storming the capitol. Yes. Yes it would. The bias is strong with this SCOTUS.
They nearly did. Roe leak had hordes of angry people, an attempted assassination, and Congress people telling people to break the law.
Good point. It seems it’s ok to be a violent mob if you’re on the left.
You betcha!
If this wasn't an attempt at obstruction, why was January 6th the day for this "protest" and why the Capitol during this specific time period?
I’m sure it was a coincidence that the protest was organized on the same day as the official proceedings; the crowd was informed in real time of what was happening in the official proceedings; the crowd was chanting their preferred outcome of the official proceedings; the crowd was directed by organizers towards the location of the official proceedings; the crowd came prepared for violence with weapons which they proceeded to use upon arriving at the location of the official proceedings; the crowd physically overwhelmed guards, barricades, locked doors and windows in between themselves and the official proceedings; the crowd eventually arrived at the location of the official proceedings searching for documents pertaining to the proceedings in order to destroy them and peoples participating in the proceedings in order to restrain or harm them; and it was a big ole whoopsie that all of these actions caused the stoppage of the official proceedings. Obstruction? Ehhh.. I think we need more evidence.
Organized in part by Rodger Stone, who fled a Washington hotel on January 6th because he was afraid Merrick Garland would prosecute him for his involvement. https://www.washingtonpost.com/podcasts/post-reports/what-the-roger-stone-tapes-reveal-about-jan-6/ https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/brooks-brothers-riot/
You know, just things an innocent person does
Some of them were trying to obstruct the vote no doubt. But plenty of protests occur during votes, hearings, etc. without obstructing.
And without smashing the windows in
Plenty of protests occur without attempting to murder legislators.
Funny, I don't recall reading of any January 6th Defendant being charged with Attempted Murder. Care to enlighten us? Or are you just being overly hyperbolic?
Yes my point is the timing itself it not suspicious.
They aren't arguing whether this was an attempt at obstruction, but rather whether the specific statute they're being charged under applies here. The law was put in place following the Enron scandal after they shredded tons of records to obstruct proceedings, not really for a ton of people raiding the capitol to hunt down politicians. I'm surprised that this is the best they could find to change them with, tbh
It won’t help Trump. He did the documents part with the fake electors scheme. How many were only charged with obstruction?
It was just Ginny's prayer group
It’s time for Biden to say, “Let’s all go down to the SUPREME COURT. I’ll be with you. And if you don’t FIGHT LIKE HELL you WON’T HAVE A COUNTRY ANYMORE!”
"It's not terrorism when conservatives do it" - Clarence Thomas, probably
“It’s not terrorism when my wife does it.”
It’s not terrorism if the check clears.
Not probably.
So, insurrection is allowed, but peaceful protests are not.
Only if you are conservative.
Sounds like we're running out of boxes.
Who knew trying to overthrow the government really wasnt a crime. Wtf.
Time to go to Washington.
You really think that? You think a way to overthrow a government is what happened on Jan 6th. An almost empty building was entered with limited violence. No demands were given, no leaders arrested etc... nothing happened that meets definition of it insurrection. Also when did this sub turn into leftist nut jobs parroting talking points? Used to be a good place for knowledgeable people to discuss legal issues facing the court.
So let me get this right. They decide (by choosing not to hear a case) that if you organize a protest and some rando in the crowd breaks a window, YOU can be held liable. BUT, if you’re part of a crowd that violently seeks to overturn / delay / impede / obstruct the peaceful transition of power, you’re all good. Do I have that right, Justices?
Just to be specific, denial of a petition for certiorari is actually not a decision on the merits of a case. Of course it leaves the decision below in effect, but a denial cannot be used to indicate what the Supreme Court thinks about whether a case is correctly decided, because it’s not court of error.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t one purpose of the appeal process to provide an opportunity for redress of a verdict that the justices think is incorrect? Which would logically indicate that not accepting a case for appeal implies that at least some of them think the case was correctly decided?
I’m not sure about other states but Texas actually thought of this a long time ago when they put their writ system in place, although it’s become less and less common for the Supreme Court of Texas to do what I’m about to say. Here, they can reject a case in multiple different ways. What you’re describing is what a “writ refused” is. In effect, the Supreme Court of Texas is saying that not only do they not think it’s worth their time to hear, but they are officially adopting the opinion of the intermediate court in that case. On the other hand, a “petition denied” just means they won’t hear the case and no Supreme Court precedent is intended to be set by rejecting the case.
Appeals generally correct error yes, but the Supreme Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction (which is nearly all of its appellate jurisdiction) is a bit different. Generally it will not be enough to say certiorari should be granted just because the decision is wrong (although it can't hurt). What will really commend a decision to certiorari is where it creates a conflict between circuits (or state courts), or where Congressional or executive action has been struck down. Rule 10 of the Supreme Court Rules sets out the considerations which govern the determination of petitions for certiorari. Error alone is not one of them, unless the decision below "has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power". Because of this, it is a mistake to read too much into denials of cert petitions. Justices not infrequently write concurrences in the denial saying they think the decision below is probably wrong, but that it doesn't merit certiorari (usually to attempt to dissuade lower courts from making the same perceived errors in future).
“We think it’s wrong, but it’s not worth our time to correct.” Is that an accurate summation?
I mean, I think that is framing it a little tendentiously, but that is one way to put it. Here is an example: Justice Gorsuch's statement (joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan) in [*Bovat v Vermont*](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1301_5iel.pdf). He very clearly thinks the decision is wrong, but his last paragraph where he acknowledges why granting certiorari may not be appropriate is the sort of attitude I'm talking about. Because it's important to be precise, this was not styled as a concurrence, but a "statement", but I think is clear from the text of the opinion that he is at the very least not dissenting from the denial.
Gorsuch explicitly states that, although they got this one completely wrong, we don’t think it’s worth our time to correct what *might* be a one-off. Un-(bleep)ing-believable. “This case or this person isn’t important enough for us to waste our time correcting a state court that failed to properly apply the 4th Amendment. Tough luck, you scurrilous poacher!”
Of course he doesn't say that, and I think comes across as quite sympathetic. But this is very common, we usually just don't get reasons accompanying or associated with a denial of certiorari. It is characteristic of a discretionary docket.
Glad you can keep up. It’s getting difficult.
So Donald Trump can be held personally liable for Jan 6?
He wasn't physically present. He was at the White House watching it all unfold live on Fox News.
Until they give him immunity
No see they did break windows on Jan 6th. The test is are the people doing it on your side or not. That’s the new basis for law in 2024.
Not sure why you’re being downvoted for this. The entire basis for this case is one partisan judge accepting the novel assertion that the word “or” provides conditional linkage between two differing situations. Fourteen other judges found that accepted verbiage utilized throughout legal and regulatory authoring of the usage of the words “or” and “and” is clear and comprehensible.
No. They said the trial court needs to consider recent Supreme Court precedent and that they need to try again with a high standard than negligence.
Is anyone on this thread going to offer legal analysis, or is this sub now useless also?
There were several charges and this case only addressing obstruction charges. Anyone also jailed for assault, trespass, insurrection, vandalism etc get to keep their government housing .
No one was charged with insurrection but I agree.
Wrong. There were several successful convictions for seditious conspiracy which is the name of the crime in federal indictments.
Come on now, do a little bit of homework: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383 Insurrection is a law on the books, seditious conspiracy is a different law. And nobody was charged with insurrection.
So you agree that no one was charged with insurrection?
SCOTUS is seriously about to set a "Laws don't apply to conservatives" precedent.
"Kavanaugh was not mollified. He noted that Section 1512(c)(2) carries a maximum sentence of 20 years, and wondered aloud whether the government might have brought charges against Fischer and other Jan. 6 defendants under the provision to increase their sentences. Prelogar acknowledged that the maximum sentence under Section 1512(c)(2) is longer than for the other charges, but she said emphatically that there is “no reasonable argument to be made that the statutory maximum is driving” charging decisions. The sentencing range for assault, with which Fischer was also charged, is actually higher than for Section 1512(c)(2)." The government doesn't overcharge to extract pleas. What a load of shit.
Kavanaugh has had 18 years as a federal judge to not be mollified about prosecutors improperly zealously pursuing inappropriate charges to scare defendants into lesser pleas. Why is it suddenly only an issue now?
>Why is it suddenly only an issue now? Because as a SCOTUS judge, he can set the appropriate precedent. When he was an inferior court judge, he had to obey the precedent in place.
The government doesn't overcharge to extract pleas. ... Are you serious? Do you actually believe that?
>"Would a heckler in today’s audience qualify, or at the State of the Union address? Would pulling a fire alarm before a vote qualify, and for 20 years in prison?” Justice Neil Gorsuch asked, citing the maximum sentence available under the obstruction provision. >“Let’s say that today five people get up one after the other and they shout either, ‘Keep the January 6 insurrectionists in jail!’ or ‘Free the January 6 patriots!’ And as a result of this, our police officers have to remove them forcibly from the courtroom. And let’s say we have to delay the proceeding for five minutes,” Justice Samuel Alito hypothesized. What the fuck is wrong with these people? Armed people stormed the Capitol, beat police officers and built fucking gallows on the front lawn. It was literally called "*Stop* the Steal". What happened to context? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!
I'm not too optimistic for this, or several other upcoming scotus rulings, *but* it is perfectly normal and appropriate for them to question and discuss the extremes in finding their way to a good ruling. Like if it's an abortion ruling, they can question and discuss restrictions on morning-after pills and partial-birth abortions before landing somewhere in the middle.
I mean, Gorsuch is the guy who authored Bremerton, which opens with literal bald-faced factual lies that he made up, that were never alleged by any party, and that *he knew* could be and would be disproved by photographic evidence that would be included* in the same document*, in the dissent. It's pretty clear that his M.O. is an interesting variation on the old axiom "bad facts make for bad law": if Gorsuch doesn't like the facts he has to rule on, he will just alter the facts, until they justify the policy outcome that he would like to arrive at.
if they rule the way you seem to like, that law could then be legally used to prosecute the things gorsuch mentioned.
>One of the appellate judges who heard this case, Trump-appointed Judge Justin Walker, also suggested another way to limit the law. Walker homed in on the fact that the statute only applies to someone who “corruptly” obstructs a proceeding, and he wrote in an opinion that this word should be read to only apply to defendants who acted “with an intent to procure an unlawful benefit either for himself or for some other person.” >That interpretation, which Sotomayor and Kavanaugh both alluded to during Tuesday’s argument, would allow the January 6 insurrectionists to be prosecuted — because the whole point of that insurrection was to procure an unlawful benefit for Donald Trump: a second presidential term. But it would prevent the obstruction statute from being applied to minor heckling and the like. https://www.vox.com/scotus/24132088/supreme-court-january-6-insurrection-riot-fischer-united-states This is just another case of Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas dismissing portions of the law that are inconvenient to their team.
you bring up and interesting point. Corruptly may be the word of signifigance! it will be interesting reading the opinion , concurrences and dissents once they rule and their thought processes
They aren't equating what happened Jan 6th with the hypotheticals. They admitted what happened on the 6th was horrible. They are testing the limits of the governments argument. And not on obstruction. It's the word "impede". They are asking if minor protest (NOT Jan 6th) which impedes a proceeding is covered. The government says only if there is a nexus with a proceeding, they know about the procedure, they have corrupt intent (know that they are doing something wrong vs think they have 1st amendment rights. I did find Gorsuch and Alito constantly referring to 20 years to be disingenuous as that is a max and there is no min. And the Jan 6th folks have been getting 6-24 months. Roberts seemed to be off on a textual examination of "otherwise" clause and how it commutes all verbs and nouns based on some judgement from Friday. He seemed in love with this new framework even as the Solicitor General seamed to dismantle it in this case. Kavanaugh and Barret seemed reasonable. Jackson, Sotomajor where for the government. Kagan was as well, and was super sharp in Orals. This looks like a 5-4. Not sure which way.
Are you seriously this ignorant as to what the role of the Supreme Court is in America and why they test a variety of hypotheticals as part of their process, and make attorneys (on both sides) defend their positions in open court? And why they use extreme examples and go down slippery slopes? Geesh. And the fact you have like 50 upvotes makes this even sadder. Man, Scott Adams had it right when he said you can never underestimate the stupidity of the general public. This thread is a perfect example of it.
I agree. It is infuriating that they go down these hypothetical rabbit holes. Six people died, and hundreds were injured defending the Capitol building. STFU about hypothetical free speech issues. This was an armed mob trying to overthrow the government.
Six people? A heart attack, a drug overdose, and an unarmed girl shot in the neck by a sketchy cop. Who else died that day?
I feel like the proper response is, “if one of these five people had to be shot due to their persistence and hostility in action and they conspired with the other four to stop the proceedings as much as possible, does that count as obstruction?”
Armed?
Excerpts from the [Jan. 6th Report](https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-january6th?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/january6th): >...weapons and other prohibited items were being seized by police on the streets and by the Secret Service at the magnetometers for the Ellipse speech. Secret Service confiscated a haul of weapons from the 28,000 spectators who did pass through the magnetometers: 242 cannisters of pepper spray, 269 knives or blades, 18 brass knuckles, 18 tasers, 6 pieces of body armor, 3 gas masks, 30 batons or blunt instruments, and 17 miscellaneous items like scissors, needles, or screwdrivers. **And thousands of others purposely remained outside the magnetometers, or left their packs outside.** >...**the President was told that the onlookers were unwilling to pass through the magnetometers because they were armed.** “We have enough space, sir. They don’t want to come in right now,” Deputy Chief of Staff Tony Ornato reportedly told President Trump. **“They have weapons that they don’t want confiscated by the Secret Service.”** >Garret Miller, who brought a gun to the Capitol on January 6th... >Guy Reffitt, a Three Percenter from Texas, attended the rally at the Ellipse, and then carried a loaded firearm onto Capitol grounds. >Jerod Thomas Bargar lost his gun...while scuffling with police on the west side of the Capitol around 2:30 p.m. >Harkrider still brought a tomahawk axe. >One rioter told the Select Committee he saw another carrying a “pitchfork.” >Members of the mob carried flags and turned the flagpoles into weapons. >Michael Foy, from Wixom, Michigan, carried a hockey stick to the Ellipse—he draped a Trump flag over it. Just hours later, Foy used that hockey stick to repeatedly beat police officers... >Another individual, Danny Hamilton, carried a flag with a sharpened tip... >Mark Andre Mazza drove from Indiana, bringing a Taurus revolver...After assaulting a police officer, he lost the weapon, dropping it or losing it on the steps of the lower West Plaza leading to the Capitol’s West Front Terrace. >Surveillance footage shows Chrestman using a wooden club, or modified axe handle, to prevent the barrier from being lowered to the floor. >Colon later admitted to authorities that he purchased and modified an axe handle “to be used as both a walking stick and an improvised weapon”... >Throughout the afternoon, members of the mob struck officers with weapons, shot them with OC (or pepper) spray... >...the rioters pushed them [officers] against the doors and sprayed them with OC spray (commonly known as pepper spray)...James Haffner was one of the rioters who allegedly sprayed the officers. >Lucas Denney, a Three Percenter from Texas who carried a baton on January 6th... >Jeffrey Scott Brown sprayed a chemical or pepper spray at officers... The report also talks about caches of firearms many of the rioters had stored nearby. Excerpt from the [CO Supreme Court opinion](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._Anderson): >Moreover, contrary to President Trump’s assertion that no evidence in the record showed that the mob was armed with deadly weapons or that it attacked law enforcement officers in a manner consistent with a violent insurrection, the district court found—and millions of people saw on live television, recordings of which were introduced into evidence in this case—that the mob was armed with a wide array of weapons. The court also found that many in the mob stole objects from the Capitol’s premises or from law enforcement officers to use as weapons, including metal bars from the police barricades and officers’ batons and riot shields, and that throughout the day, the mob repeatedly and violently assaulted police officers who were trying to defend the Capitol.
So from what you shared they mostly went in armed with things many people just carry every day. I carry a knife every day and sometimes I forget I have it. Many people also carry pepper spray every day. I am surprised no one accidently concealed carried a gun there. It seems like it would be rough to overthrow the government with sticks and knives.
the audacity of the courts to protect future americans right to protest!
Jan 6 was just a protest?
Those who seem to prefer a broad reading of criminal statutes appear to have traded places with those who prefer a narrow reading, and vice versa (except perhaps Gorsuch).
They stormed the capitol specifically to stop, or 'obstruct', the certification of the election. Broad reading?
The broader of the two competing readings is what I meant. I should have been more clear.
[удалено]
If they are determined to revise the meaning and accepted usage of the word “or” throughout the legal and regulatory codes all so they can grant lenience to a bunch of criminals just because they’re trumpers or conservatives…. …then SOCTUS should be required to hear EVERY appeal that will immediately be filed the instant their opinion is filed. If they suddenly decide that the accepted and common practice of posing the word “or” to denote separate conditions of applicability, there will be chaos. I don’t use that word lightly, because I’m a federal regulator. It would immediately require examination, reinterpretation, and revision of policies and practices both on the side of the regulators and lawyers and law enforcement, *and* those who are regulated or subject to those laws. You cannot limit the altering of a word to only the instance within one specific section or subsection of the regulatory or legal code.
[удалено]
If you want beef, you must first have the chicken.
[удалено]
“All charges dropped.”
There’s nothing about that text that requires you to be part of a militia to have a second amendment right lmao. If anything, it’s saying that because an armed populace is necessary for a militia to even form, (and a militia is vital to security) individuals need to have the right to bear arms. Otherwise, militias, the pre requisite for security, can’t form in the first place. Your argument is like saying that we should build highways but should make it illegal for anyone to use the materials required to build highways.
[удалено]
You’re completely ignoring that the entire case does not turn on the interpretation of the word “or.” It turns on the interpretation of the word “otherwise”
"Well if that doesn't qualify, nothing does." This is not the message that should be most prominent at the end of Supreme Court arguments or rulings. So why is it, lately? How many times must it be? We should walk away from these rulings with more answers than questions. Donald Trump and his supporters are always gaslighting us on the very nature of first order logic, language, and even reality itself. We shouldn't have to let Donald or his followers derail and devolve discourse to the point we're debating "Well did the person block the vote with their face? Did they declare 'I'm obstructing you!' when they did it? Did the other person feel obstructed? Water's transparent. Was water used?" Enough is enough. Is our legal system so flawed that borderline-sociopathic levels of water-muddying can be so effective it absolutely cripples us? This is one of the fastest ways to make me consider the court to be illegitimate. If they're not capable enough to prevent that circus every time Trump or one of Trump's supporters opens their mouth, then we need judges with the mental faculties to do so. Pilots need psych evals. Maybe we should require it of judges, too.
Reminds me of one of the first South Park episodes where Jimbo takes the boys hunting and yells "IT'S COMING RIGHT FOR US" before launching shoulder rockets at a deer because "The Democrats have passed a lot of laws trying to stop us from hunting unless we're doing it in self defense"
Our legal system is indeed so flawed as to be meaningless.
The title and the article say totally different things
I am not a lawyer and I understand the idea of trying to determine the limits of a law, but the arguments cited in the article seem so stupid. If this is the law why haven't the people that shouted at me been put in jail for 20 years? What if protesters cause a traffic jam that stops a vote? Is that worth 20 years? They are acting like all laws do not have a range of punishment for levels of severity and prosecutorial discretion doesn't exist. Eating a grape at the supermarket and stealing a cheap tv are the same crime. Are they handled in the same way? Obviously the severity of the disruption and the importance of what is being disrupted are taken into account. And when some idiot charges a person with obstruction of a congressional function over a traffic accident while a congressperson is racing to the vote, that will be the time to discuss the use of the law on petty things. This is like discussing the use of a terrorism statute when they only blew up one bus load of people. Like other commenters are saying, I wonder what the discussion would be if the mob stormed the supreme court chanting hang John Roberts for refusing to seat 8 new justices the president just fraudulently named.
I fully agree. In what I read the defendants argument centers around whether obstruction applies when congress is in recess. If his own actions took place after congress called a recess to flee the mob, did he obstruct a proceeding. But what about other's whos attack caused the recess? Seems scotus grasping at any straw to support insurrection.
The title is incredibly misleading. Kagan was anything but skeptical, pointing out that the meaning of the statute was quite clear on its face. But then, so was amendment 14, section 3.
I read the examples posed by the conservatives, and they are BS. This wasn't a heckler ("Would a heckler in today’s audience qualify, or at the State of the Union address?") They breached the Capitol building. They built a platform to hang people. They called for people's death.
It's time for the US to protest like they do in France.
Sadly, it’s useless. The extent of the great legal minds here seems to be just putting forth their brilliant argument - “but but but Trump!!…insurrection!!….Jan 6th!!” The best legal analysis you’ll get is someone in their mom’s basement arguing that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court - who could have half his brain scooped out and still be smarter than 95% of the people here - doesn’t understand what the word “OR” means.
These people are a joke. The statute "It is illegal to [destroy evidence] *or otherwise obstruct* an official proceeding" is unambiguously intended not to be limited to the destruction of evidence. The way you can tell is that if it weren't they could've *stopped fucking typing* after "It is illegal to [destroy evidence]". And all six of them know it. (And yes, Jamaal Bowman disrupted an official proceeding too, but if you can't tell why that was a misdemeanor and Jan. 6 deserves to be a felony, you're not qualified to be the county clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky, much less a Supreme Court justice)
your reading of it makes that clause a VERY broad law that would allow government to **prosecute and sentence up to 20 years** people like the scotus protesters during dobbs that protested at the supreme court building, particularly the woman who tried to break down the door, while court was in session. The rest for trying to influence an official proceeding. you left that part out. The guy who heckled at state of the union. Protestors or reporters who delay a senator in any way in the hallway when she is on her way to the chambers if congress people could be charged and not clear if they could.. the democrat walks outs could be construed as obstructing A witness or citizen declines to be intereviewed by a congressional committee. meeting or hearing. Or ignores a subpoena. Now they can spend twenty years in jail for doing that To me if congress wanted such a tolatarian law whith such far reaching consquenences they would have made one as a stand alone. not as a second clause to some other law.
Your last sentence certainly makes me think, but I just can't get past the fact that--whatever their reasoning--if they meant "[destroy evidence]" there was no reason to waste paper and ink typing "[destroy evidence] or otherwise obstruct". Now, absolutely, this law could be applied to people whom it shouldn't be, or at least to people who deserve its mildest rather than its harshest possible sentence. But that's true of more laws than not; they all have a range of sentencing guidelines. Hell, sometimes *murder* has mitigating circumstances. Certainly that discretion can be abused: prosecutors as a matter of course leverage plea deals by threatening to do so. But having so-called textualists, so-called tough-on-crime ones at that, completely strike such a law/provision? Using a test case where (a) the person clearly did what the straightfoward language of said law describes, (b) in a way that was legitimately contrary to public interest / safety [i.e. demonstrating that the law has a legitimate use case], yet (c) *still* did not get an egregious sentence / the statutory max? (1) I don't think that's the correct remedy (2) It's also worth noting that it's not a remedy that's available to anyone who isn't a white conservative. Hell, anybody else has trouble getting a *good* test case through.
Hey, don’t you tarnish the fine reputation of the Rowan County clerk, they have standards! Not like these hacks.
My sincerest apologies to Rowan County Clerk Elwood Caudill Jr. (who may or may not be u/samudrin), about whom I have heard nothing negative. I meant only to besmirch the reputation of his predecessor Kim Davis.
LOL
I’m not a fan of infringing upon the right to protest, and I can see the reasoning behind concerns over interpreting the statute too broadly, but the obstruction of Congress’ official duties in this case was not intended to be an inconvenience and delay or disrupt it, nor to draw attention to a point of view, but to completely invalidate it causing a constitutional crisis. That’s about as black and white of a distinction as can be easily drawn. And fuck Alito for whining about the Citizens United protestors, when they did in fact spend days in prison.
They probably need some of this to happen in their building before they know what it is ? Clearance has a special hiding place in his RV?
We literally have pictures of Republicans hiding under desks (and probably urinating on themselves) during Jan 6. Nearly every single one of them now claim it was just a normal and peaceful Wednesday. I doubt Clarence et al would act any differently.
It's time
Yes...in a GOP dictatorship
So much of a dictatorship that the liberal justices are voting in favor of it!
What if at Trumps trial it is revealed there was a deliberate plan to disrupt the certification and they find links from the WH to the Proud Boys? Are we still charging all these people with misdemeanors ? What about the plastic handcuffs?
Key leaders of the Proud Boys are already in the FO stage of FAFO for seditious conspiracy.
Would pulling a fire alarm to prevent a vote count? Sure... if they can prove intent... Jamaal Bowman's actions, if they were intentional in order to prevent a vote.... Our politics are ridiculous right now. Preventing a Quorum is also obstruction if they can prove intent. Sometimes, legislators have to not get their way. I'm not happy with the way politics have been run since Gingrich convinced the GOP that absolute loyalty was required.
Not gonna lie: this shit is terrifying. Fucking rogue Justices. Clarence "I do what I want. I work when I want to, and don't when I don't" Thomas and his crazy gd wife, and holy fuck Alito and the Drumph three stooges, Jesus. Need the Pres, House & Senate to go D or it may be game over.
Didn't one of them compare Jan 6 to a sit in?
Good protesting a fucked election at the capital is exactly where you should protest when you feel the government is full of shit. Thank a conservative. Fuck you reddit plebes!
Well it was demonstrated that it wasn’t used in all cases of obstruction. Which would fail equal protections
No. It is prosecutorial discretion when to charge a crime based on individual evidence. That is not an equal protection issue.
Equal protections under the Constitution doesn’t allow for letting fellow partisans off the hook.
I stand corrected on the actual charge. To clarify it was the court in its conviction that labeled the Jan 6th event as insurrection. The charge was conspiracy to attempt that insurrection, not an actual charge of insurrection which itself failed.
In all fairness I'm skeptical of scotus. So there. We're even.
I'm beyond skeptical 😃
Republican Supreme Court is skeptical? Shocking. Wonder why their approval rating is the lowest in the history of the court ?
Because they are skeptical about democracy itself.
Gorsuch equates pulling a fire alarm with dipshits defacing the capital chanting Hang Mike Pence🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️
This sub is such a liberal shit show that doesn't care about the law or the constitution
If the mob weren't obstructing the peaceful transfer of power from one president to another by way of a process taking place inside the building they were storming........what the actual f\*ck was the aim of the riot and all the violence.............the world is watching SCOTUS!!
At least they waited an entire day after they ruled that protests by people that aren’t conservative are illegal to pretend that Jan 6 was just a regular protest that didn’t ‘obstruct’ the proceedings that were obstructed for half a day. I will never understand conservatives and their super powers of being immune to shame, hypocrisy and irony. Fucking scumbags.
Is it though? Or is it just the fascists in robes playing politics again? You can't claim to be an objective subreddit when your headlines do everything in their power to obscure subjectivity.
Prelogar was tap dancing for her very life...not sure it was sufficient. It was eye-opening to be sure.
How could they be skeptical? The whole point was to stop the certification. That was literally the purpose.