Originally published at: Supreme Court Narrows Obstruction Charge Used In Jan. 6 Cases Along Odd Split
The Supreme Court on Friday narrowed an obstruction charge that had been used in the prosecution of hundreds of Jan. 6 insurrectionists — and in the pending case against Donald Trump — with an unusual configuration of justices. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority and Justice Amy Coney Barrett for the dissenters. In…
1 Like
Head spinning!! Ketanji Jackson Brown in the majority and Amy Coney Barrett amongst the dissenters??
3 Likes
It seems we’re up to the “dogs and cats sleeping together. Mass Hysteria!” portion of the end times.
6 Likes
Just wait until the majority finds Monday that Trump is immune from prosecution. Law and order will be turned on its head.
10 Likes
Libertine men and scarlet women, and ragtime, shameless music
That’ll grab your son, your daughter with the arms of a jungle, animal instinct
Mass-staria!
2 Likes
Have any of the Ladies on the court, sans the Handmaiden, written a majority opinion this term?
2 Likes
IANAL and to me this is just an astoundingly stupid decision. (Note: I cannot read the actual ruling from here at work…)
“(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, shall be fined…or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”
It is clear to this layperson that part 1 refers to “objects” and part 2 refers to the proceedings themselves that use those objects. Part 2 is not “sweeping” nor is it “the same” as part 1. WTAF???
4 Likes
None of this is gonna matter soon. With the federal government kneecapped by Roberts, it won’t matter what the laws say. Federalists in black robes will settle every dispute of note however they like.
This is why Organized Money doesn’t mind backing TRUMP. They spent decades immunizing SCOTU$ from oversight while stuffing it full of stooges. They are counting on those stooges to keep everybody in their place, including TRUMP.
I guess the rest of us have no choice but to watch this cage-match. Will a brutish demagogue who controls the military be able to defeat a bureaucracy of kings, or will their paper outmaneuver him?
10 Likes
Easy-peasey. The defendants all sought to impair the availability, integrity, or use of the electoral vote certificates being used in the official proceeding.
12 Likes
Yep, absolutely. Although there is a pretty good argument that they accomplished the obstruction when they chased the electoral vote certificates out of the building and brought the proceeding to a complete halt for six hours.
ETA: Don’t know why you deleted that. It was a perfectly valid question.
6 Likes
We suspected it would come to this. But now it’s essentially official: We now have only one branch mullahs intent in wholly remaking America into the corrupt and callous theocracy of their twisted wet dreams.
They’ve outlawed the homeless sleeping in public (even in cars); made bribery not only legal but all but virtuous; declared a war on women worthy of the Taliban; for all practical purposes they have reinstituted Jim Crow laws; given the okay to corporatists to run amok and destroy the planet for profit; shielded the the vilest, most dangerous POS to ever be selected (he was never elected) from criminal prosecution for crimes committed in plain sight; and on and on.
And as they build a bridge to the 15th century they dare us to do anything about it.
Good times.
16 Likes
I appreciate your charitable reading! In truth, I simply missed the “or attempted to do so” at the end of the quote. My question was essentially: has the Court just legalized attempts at disruption, so long as no effect can be proved?
(In my defense, it has been a major benefit to anti-democracy forces that there haven’t been major consequences for failed attempts to weaken democracy. Half of their present ascendancy is the result of re-rolling the dice a million times for free.)
5 Likes
Note the distinction between obstruction and disruption. Since the first of these charges were rolled out in the weeks after J6, MAGA types have been arguing that it was unfair because nobody got charged for obstruction when protesters interrupted Rapey McBeerface’s confirmation hearing. Like them or not, those protests were not designed to shut down the confirmation proceeding. The aim of the J6 rioters very much was to shut it down and prevent it from happening.
8 Likes
Counterpoint: this was an ordinary statutory interpretation case in which the application of the traditional canons of statutory construction to the text yielded two more or less equally respectable readings because, as they didn’t hesitate to tell us in law school, the ol’ canons of construction judges pulled out of their asses over a couple centuries are not 100% consistent. The lack of ideological cohesion is the mark of that.
The only reason we’re even taking note of it is because of the 1/6 connection. The only truly notable thing is how anachronistic the once common occurrence of SCOTUS justices acting like law review nerds rather than ideologues has become.
3 Likes
“There is no getting around it: Section 1512(c)(2) is an expansive statute,” she wrote. “Yet Congress, not this Court, weighs the ‘pros and cons of whether a statute should sweep broadly or narrowly.’”
8 Likes
Justice Jackson is the new star of this court.
2 Likes
According to AI, at least:
- Sotomayor authored Ohio v EPA
- Kagan on Harrington v Purdue Pharma
1 Like
Follow the money : - )
1 Like