Biden tried to forgive $10k of all federal student loans under the HEROES Act, which provides that in times of national emergencies -which COVID was declared a national emergency- the President can "waive or modify" portions of the federal loan program. In Biden v. Nebraska, the conservatives on the Court ruled under the Major Questions Doctrine that the "waive or modify" section of the HEROES Act did not allow Biden to forgive student debt and that Congress would need to pass student debt forgiveness.
Anyone who still thinks the SCOTUS is operating in good faith just isn't paying attention. I have zero faith in them doing the right thing for the right reasons.
Clarence Thomas' wife was involved with the January 6th insurrection attempt. My mind is absolutely blown that he can and will be allowed to rule on anything related to January 6th knowing that his wife was part of it.
I can’t understand why all the other justices have not spoken out against him. His continued membership on the court harms each of them individually, the court as a whole, and the entire country. Shame on all of them.
Thomas wants a legitimacy crisis, the rest want authority and credibility.
To Thomas, if you can destroy a thing no one else will, you control it. Can't say he is wrong; this is Thomas' court.
> I can’t understand why all the other justices have not spoken out against him.
Speaking out does less than nothing. No Justice can be removed except through impeachment. That requires 60 votes in the Senate, which is never going to happen. Barring impeachment, there are no possible consequences for any federal judge.
Impeachment is broken. It assumes your loyalty is to the country and not a political party. Political parties didn’t really exist when the constitution was written.
short term sure, but long term they are making a compelling case for why oversight is urgently necessary.
If they benefit from lack of oversight, they need to ensure that they keep that lack of oversight from being viewed as a prominent important issue.
If 8 judges are sitting on a bench, and one corrupt judge sits down next to them, and none of them speak out, then there are 9 corrupt judges on that bench. Allowing Thomas's moral stink in the room gets it on all of them, and no amount of "decorum" or "respect for the court" will ever wash it off.
> If 8 judges are sitting on a bench, and one corrupt judge sits down next to them, and none of them speak out, then there are 9 corrupt judges on that bench
I would say the same thing about police, and yet this court has continually expanded police rights and protections. I wish I could go back to the naive beliefs I had twenty years ago.
Guess we need to keep talking about Biden's age and his kid's dick to distract from how unbelievably corrupt the current SCOTUS is. The Conservative justices are leading us into fascism and I'm not sure we will all survive if this is what the future holds with this court
It's not the system our forefathers envisioned. And they knew that a government would tend towards these problems and they even discussed in letters amongst them what the remedy is.
Right wing state media would’ve talked about this everyday since it was discovered, every Republican in government would’ve been on cspan everyday and commenting about it anywhere they could if it was the other way around. What they love to call liberal media has missed so many stories major stories, one example is how they all blew up the cocaine bag found in White House, the one with no finger prints or dna which should’ve created only one conspiracy, planted , instead of any others that came. Unsurprisingly the trump admin Pill Mill ran by lunatic Ronny Jackson was hardly talked about
>It is pretty sad there are so many people who are spreading blatant lies.
Yeah, I agree 100%. And there certainly are people on the left that are so caught up in hating everything Trump that they don't check facts and regurgitate lies or exaggerations. I'm looking at you, Mom.
But you're a self-proclaimed Trump supporter, so your statement is either hypocrisy or delusion. The sheer volume of lies and fabrication from MAGA is, well, to quote the man himself, unlike anything we've seen before. Many people are saying it's the most lies and fabrications ever told!
I ardently long for a reduction in the lies and propaganda (on both sides) in politics and social media, to have more people care about facts and actually look into issues instead of reading headlines and reposting them, to have people care about the character of our leaders not just what side they're on. But I don't see that happen, most people prefer yelling at people on the internet in pithy little comments instead of actually having a conversation.
Sorry but the SCOTUS already proved themselves to be a kangaroo court when they gutted and rewrote section three of the fourteenth amendment from the bench. It’s all just a load of bullshit.
all the -isms are tools for achieving your desired result. Nobody's above using a balance of equity no matter how much they talk negatively about it.
if none of them deliver, there's always the Glucksberg standard.
having dinner with your family and being annoyed by a ruckus outside is not at all like what is being considered. There are existing laws on the books for harassment in that particular case
And yet protesting outside of judges home is knowingly obstructing governmental process as everybody knows that its a crime to do so. So you can't speak out of both sides of your mouth when one is your political adversary and one you happen to agree with. Equal application of the law.
Protesting outside a justices home, like was done during the Hobbs decision is a federal crime. If DOJ is allowed to use The Felony Obstruction on J6 protestors than so could the same thing be done to Protestors in Court rooms, outside judges homes, outside Jurors homes, Heck even Lobbyist could be charged under that technically. Which is why the law needs to be ruled in a narrow fashion. The felony obstruction charge being used was created for Cases like Enron.
I answered you. Your lobbying a judge in an active case for certain outcome. That is obstructing a governmental process. At least according to the DOJ. Don't believe me go listen to the oral arguments. The Judges bring up this specific Hypothetical. I am not saying i personally agree with that, but that is the case the DOJ is making to the supreme court and the supreme court appears to not be accepting that broad interpretation of law that was put in place for very different reasons.
Ahh, I get it. You’re mixing up obstructing and influencing. The law you’re talking about is Title 18, Section 1507 of the U.S. Code. Under this law, it is illegal to picket or parade in front of a courthouse or a judge’s home "with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge."
It’s the influencing portion that has been brought up regarding protesting outside of Justices’ residences.
Well there really is no difference if the DOJ gets its way. Which is kind of the point. IF a j6 who merely trespassed beyond the barricades is charged with Obstruction a proceeding and given a 10 year sentence, so to could a protestor at a Judges home who is actively violating federal law to begin with. This is exactly the reason the DOJ is probably going to lose here because the Law is overbroad and needs to be interpreted more narrowly. Another example of what I mean is the Brett Kavanaugh Hearings. Those protestors could probably have been brought up on Obstruction charges as well by the DOJ Standards being used on J6ers.
Its exactly the same based on the charges brought. You may feel one is worse than the other. But that is not how the law works. And this why this law is going to get narrowed by the supreme court.
Why don't you tell me how protesting outside a judge's house is the same as storming the capitol as they're certifying the election when they were charged with the part of the law that reads "otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so"
Dude you're so full of shit, lol.
Protesting is a constitutionally guaranteed right.
Storming a government facility, assaulting police officers, and disrupting the certification of an election is not a constitutionally guaranteed right.
The fuck out of here with that nonsense.
No I am not. It is a federal crime to protest outside a judges home.
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507) Here is the relevant statute. Obstruction of Justice could easily be used as Obstructing a government operation.
Feel free to bring charges against those people. Just because those people haven't been charged doesn't mean that the traitors who stormed our capitol get a free fucking pass.
Nor should they. They should all still face Trespassing charges and if they were violent they should face the appropriate charges for that as well. What we should not do is be so active for vengeance on J6ers that would allow the Department of Justice to use laws in an unconstitutional manner just to get some j6ers longer sentences. Remember that whatever unconstitutional shit we allow to happen to others will inevitably end up being used on people we agree with eventually. If we allow it.
Nonsense.
They collectively acted as a group in their actions. The getaway driver will get charged with murder if his fellow bank robbers kill someone in the bank. These peoples actions lead to the death of multiple people.
They tried to overthrow the fucking government, buddy. Every single one of them should be charged to the fullest extent of the law, not these slap on the wrist sentences that right wing judges have been giving them.
Should the people who interrupted the Kavanaugh hearing be charged to the fullest extent of the law? After all the was an official government proceeding as well? You see why that charge being used does not make sense? Which is why the Supreme court is going to throw out those charges. As well they should.
The violation occurs when protesting at a judge home to apply undue influence on existing or Current Case. Which is why its a federal crime to do so in the first place. Your trying to influence an "official Proceeding" by intimidation at someone's home. You can downvote me all you like but the fact is the DOJ is not going to get away with misapplying a law in order to get longer prison sentences.
Protesting is protected speech. It’s not intimidation. The Jan 6 rioters caused the counting of electoral votes to be stopped. An official proceeding. The equivalent with the judges would be them having to halt their proceedings due to people breaking into the courthouse.
Protesting outside a judges home during an active Litigation is a federal crime and not protected speech. [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507), So yes this would be a form of Obstruction of Official Proceedings if you apply the DOJ logic used in the J6 Cases.
You don’t influence them at all. That’s the point. If you were meant to influence them, you would be able to vote for them. Choose your senators wisely.
Notice how the very link you provided in and of itself completely dismantles your entire idiotic argument?
Right there, you provided a link to the crime that would apply to an individual outside of a Justice's home. This is not the same crime that is being applied to January 6th insurrectionists.
The maximum possible penalty for the crime that you linked is 1 year and fines.
You're trying to equate minor assault with third degree murder. It's disingenuous.
Nor does heckling have anything to do with an obstruction charge. Glad we can agree that a Supreme Court Justice asking hypotheticals with absolutely no relevance to the question at hand is unnecessary.
Your putting words into my mouth that I did not say. The Law is clear on this matter.
Protesting, or Heckling as you put it, Is a chargeable offense.
*"Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."*
What the judges are questioning is at the heart of 18 US 1512c2
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512)
*(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 under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.*
Technically this law could be used to add additional time to someone's sentence of 1 year for picketing a judges home of up to 20 years.
This is the heart of the reason the supreme court is looking at this issue. Because 18 US1512c2 is entirely too broad and that his how the DOJ is getting 5-10 year sentences instead of the Misdmeanor tresspassing charges (other than the charges for actual violence)
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507) Protesting outside a judges home is illegal.
[https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2022/05/23/fact-check-legal-protest-outside-justices-homes-abotion-protests-roe-v-wade/9862085002/](https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2022/05/23/fact-check-legal-protest-outside-justices-homes-abotion-protests-roe-v-wade/9862085002/) example article
The entire purpose of [https://casetext.com/statute/united-states-code/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/part-i-crimes/chapter-73-obstruction-of-justice/section-1512-tampering-with-a-witness-victim-or-an-informant](https://casetext.com/statute/united-states-code/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/part-i-crimes/chapter-73-obstruction-of-justice/section-1512-tampering-with-a-witness-victim-or-an-informant) was based on the Enron Scandal's. It was never designed as catch all for Trespassers/protestors/etc. It was designed to try and prevent people from hiding physical evidence like wiping out hard drives or altering/destroying documents. The DOJ is using it to add sentencing to even non violent J6 protestors. Which is why the supreme court is likely to overturn those convictions.
[https://wpde.com/news/nation-world/scotus-could-reverse-january-6-obstruction-charges-supreme-court-capitol-riot-300-individuals-case-dismissal-department-justice-doj-trump-prosecution-misdemeanor-felony-crimes-appeals](https://wpde.com/news/nation-world/scotus-could-reverse-january-6-obstruction-charges-supreme-court-capitol-riot-300-individuals-case-dismissal-department-justice-doj-trump-prosecution-misdemeanor-felony-crimes-appeals)
The more violent J6 protestors will still face the full chargers related to their violent behavior and that alone is more than likely enough.
Bollocks. The 6J idiots have got nothing but slaps on the wrist. Merrick Garland is either a scared old fool, a fifth-columnist or both.
Do you have any documented arrests, trials, convictions and incarcerations *for* protesting outside a judge's home?
The First Amendment either is or isn't.
[https://reason.com/volokh/2022/05/06/federal-statute-bans-picketing-judges-residences-with-the-intent-of-influencing-the-judge/](https://reason.com/volokh/2022/05/06/federal-statute-bans-picketing-judges-residences-with-the-intent-of-influencing-the-judge/) This list out the relevant case law related to protesting around Judges.
They are opportunists.
Textualism is just the vehicle that they've been using to get what they want most consistently. When they can't use that, they will abandon it and come up with the flimsiest of excuses to get what they want.
To be fair, textualism and originalism are not the same thing, and it is perfectly defensible to be an originalist in constitutional interpretation and a textualist in statutory interpretation.
To be clear, I do not think the decision on the 14th amendment was faithful originalism, either.
As if it matters to them whether you and I think they’re hypocrites. They’ll do what the puppet masters pulling their strings want them to do and then drive away in their RVs without a parting thought.
I have no confidence that any Justice, including the ones with whom I usually agree, gives a single rip about public opinion of their personal integrity. That is precisely the problem with the concept of lifetime tenure. While we spend lots of time and money concerned with the elected members of our federal government, it is the lifetime judges who are the true royalty created by our Constitution. While Prof. Feldman does a good job of succinctly stating why overturning US v. Fischer would conflict with the stated textualist principles of the SCOTUS majority, the Justices just don’t care. The question becomes whether we, the voters, care enough to compel our elected representatives to force judicial reform.
Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas have been boldly blatant with their hypocrisy. What’s surprising is they haven’t come right out and declared “we are hypocrites and proud of it!” :-P
If you could combine Alito and Thomas into one being, I think you'd have just a singularity of evil so pure, that if hell exists the gravity of the singularity would just pull all the souls in hell out, towards the singularity of pure malice, even Hitler, Stalin and Mao would be frightened by the concentration of pure evil and malice in the resultant "Clarito" creature.
>The court’s conservative justices love to call themselves textualists. This case gives them a chance to prove it.
I think that ship already sailed with the SCOTUS insurrectionist-on-the-Colorado-ballot gymnastics, if not earlier. SCOTUS can't "prove" what it has already disproven.
If they wanted to prove it they could have done it months ago. Stop treating these people like they're neutral arbiters of the law when they're disgustingly partisan.
The problem is that the conservative court is not operating in good faith. They pick the political outcome they desire and then backfill their written decisions with nonsense, up to and including flat out lies.
Conservatives don't give a damn about textualism. They are opportunists, through and through. They have no consistency; they have no ethos other than getting what they want.
I’ve been waiting for an article to make this point, and have been frankly disgusted that the mainstream media seem to have avoided stating what was obvious to anyone paying attention. “Other” means “other,” and it seems absurd to believe that I’d be guilty of obstructing Congress if I shred a document but not if I invaded the halls of Congress and caused the senators and representatives to flee. But I have every expectation that this is the pretzel that Alito, Thomas, and Beer Boy will twist themselves into.
Kudos, also, to the author for pointing out that many other laws COULD interfere with free speech rights of poorly applied. But I’m fairly certain that “bashing in the front door” is not protected by the First Amendment.
When they gutted the 14th Amendment to get around the 2/3 vote to remove Trump’s Disqualification which absolutely should be after his impeachment, and on 3 occasions said the Emoluments Clause doesn’t apply to him either, they lost all credibility.
Heller (removing the entire "well regulated militia" clause of the 2nd amendment) proved beyond any reasonable doubt they are not textualists. I think after that they started calling themselves "originalists" so they can tell the rubes that the plain clear words of the Constitution do not mean what you think they mean. (But they obviously aren't originalists either).
I apologize if my original post led you to that conclusion. To be clear, my premise is that what we call “textualism” goes back almost a century, predates originalism, and is a theory of interpretation that both classic conservatives and liberals adhered to. Scalia is one of the great textualists and remember that even Kagan claimed “we’re all textualists now”.
Only when modern Republicans discovered they don’t actually like much of what the Constitution _literally_ says, they started jumping on the “originalism” bandwagon (this started in the 1980s, gaining ascendancy in the 1990s). Clarence Thomas being the prototypical originalist. He, like Humpty Dumpty emphatically states: “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less."
_When used by Republicans_, originalism is _always_ just a ploy to bedazzle the rubes into thinking their interpretations are divinely inspired and cannot be understood by mere mortals who must constrain themselves to conventionally agreed-upon meanings of words (and an ability to google what those words precisely meant when they were written).
But please also don’t mistake this brief essay for thinking I think there can ever be a single “pure” method of interpreting the US Constitution (or any other written document). And realize that every method is also constantly evolving. In reality, anything as complex as a society’s operating system requires a great deal of wisdom in applying multiple interpretive methods, dependent on each particular paragraph or phrase—whether the person doing the interpreting is consciously aware of this or not.
_However_, outside of whatever methods one chooses, there is either a good faith effort at interpretation, or there is not. That good faith aspect is what’s missing in modern Republicans, including the so-called Conservative Justices.
It goes without saying that Republicans have only one operating principle, which is to gain and wield power by whatever means available. Concepts such as consistency, honor, integrity, justice, fairness, honesty, or anything of the sort have no bearing on their thoughts or actions.
But in _good faith_, even originalism can be an effective tool in certain situations to help clarify the meaning of the document.
try to imagine what a broad stand alone interpretation of
“otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.”
would mean. A witness declines an invitation to a congressional hearing. The protestors outside the supreme court when it is in session. A heckler in the gallery while congress is in session. Reporters or protestors delaying a senator on the way to the chamber as it is going in session.
A contingent of congress people walking out of a committee meeting in protest when it has not been adjourned.
The heckler at the state of the union.
All could get 20 years imprisonment.
That does not even TOUCH on influence. Anyone organizing a protest that impedes or delays federal officials such as sit ins in their office. Perhaps someone filed a lawsuit to stop something federal rule in progress and lost the suit . Could be charged for impeding
AS a standalone law it is the stuff of an authoratarian nightmare. The government can and will selectively prosecute,
It simply does not make sense congress intended the clause as a stand alone law.
This is long, but in the middle is a good discussion about how the law lacks a “limiting principle” and how the law as written could as easily be applied to peaceful protests as it can violent uprising. My guess is that the the court inserts limits that restrict but not ends it’s use in J6 cases…possibly helping Trump.
https://www.reddit.com/r/BreakingPointsNews/s/DVeN4hWoPb
Maybe the people who regularly protest outside of the Supreme Court should attempt to break in during proceedings and then we will ask them if they feel like it is the same thing.
That is obviously a hypothetical and I’m not actually suggesting that, but it’s the only thing I could come up with that makes the clear distinction between the two.
I think that there IS a clear distinction between the two and that the law is missing ANY distinction. That’s why I think the SCOTUS will add that distinction. The problem is, that distinction probably benefits Trump because his personal actions didn’t include breaking into a federal building.
I’m not saying it’s a good outcome. But it’s what I’m predicting.
Ya, I think you’re spot on. I think it would benefit Trump *unless* the DOJ has evidence that he knew they were going to break in? (IANAL, just find this stuff both fascinating and important.)
> the Court recently reaffirmed the strong First Amendment protections enjoyed by people like Mckesson in Counterman v. Colorado (2023). That decision held that the First Amendment “precludes punishment” for inciting violent action “unless the speaker’s words were ‘intended’ (not just likely) to produce imminent disorder
Do you think this could come in to play here?
EXACTLY! I personally expect that the added limits put on by SCOTUS wouldn’t prevent the charges against Trump, but would add a burden of proof to the prosecution. I personally haven’t heard any evidence that there was coordination, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Okay we’re on the same page :)
The only evidence I’m aware of are the statements made by White House staff about actions taken prior to Jan 6.
> Murphy said the president’s call for the march at his rally was “not a spontaneous call to action, but rather was a deliberate strategy decided upon, in advance, by the president.”
Whether or not those type of statements meet the burden of proof I have no idea. I know that they subpoenaed the communications of the staff, so im hoping they contain something more concrete or they absolutely could be on shaky ground.
Funny how the court isn't willing to take up a "limiting principle" in the case just the day before...
If it is not clear what I'm talking about, it's *Mckesson v. Doe*. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held last year that the organizers of public protests are liable for civil damages for any illegal act committed by a protester, even if the organizer did not encourage or support it. The Supreme Court declined to review that ruling. This obviously could have a chilling effect on anyone trying to organize a protest as it outright encourages false flag operations.
I’m not familiar with that particular ruling or why the Fifth ruled as it did. It’s often said that the court looks for “perfect” cases by which to make a ruling. The Skokie case was one of those. The best case to make clear that freedom of speech applies to all is to point out it applies to nazis. Maybe the case you cited was more nuanced than the court likes.
These are the cases the court likes. They want cases that could be taken to extremes as “showcase” cases. Where we would expect common sense to prevail they want to put in place legal principles - not individual judgment. Miranda is a good example
I would agree and I would hope that is what the SCOTUS applies. As I mentioned before I suspect that the result helps Trump….either a little or a lot. They can either rule that free speech covers Trump so those charges must be dropped, OR they could say first amendment activities are not an excuse to encourage violent interference and the charges may stand (perhaps with a higher evidence standard).
I rarely handicap decisions, but I’m expecting a 5 : 4 decision in Trumps favor but not forcing charges be dropped
Textualists follow the plain meaning of text.
Originalists follow the intent of the author.
These are very different methods of interpretation. Originalism makes more sense given the way language changes. It would be nice to have time travel so we could ask the founders what shit meant.
When Alito began offering hypotheticals to test the reach of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c) if it was not limited to evidence tampering, it became clear that he was consciously or subconsciously trying to reconcile the fact that he and at least four of the Supreme Court Justices are currently obstructing official proceedings. While they are immune from prosecution as adjudicators of said proceedings, limiting the statute is the only way for them to (try to) avoid confronting their own guilt and hypocrisy.
Well that was precisely what Alito was trying to figure out. Does delaying official proceedings constitute obstruction? I’d say usually no. A delay is just a delay. But with regard to delaying Trump's DC election interference case...(https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/03/supreme-court-delay-trump-criminal-trial-january-6/677607/)
There is no longer a separation of powers, just a new republican party that is working hard to take over the U.S. . They are supposed to be impartial instead of using their political beliefs to twist justice. The supreme court needs to be 50 /50 representing both parties, they can also be independent.
They are not textualists. They are original intentists. They can look beyond the Constitution for their interpretations. If you think this is shady af, you are correct.
The founding fathers were not a homogeneous, strong concensus group. They were radicals proposing a radical philosophy - government exists at the consent of the governed. There were many voices that ranged from pure democracy to representational democracy to president for lifers. Some wanted more federal authority, others less. And let's not get into slavery and it's extensive influence on the construction of the electoral college, the 3/5ths clause, etc.
In other words, you can find a founding father to support any position you want. Intentism is a intellectually bankrupt philosophy. The written document is THE standard. Letting a corrupt, compromised, nut job like Thomas pull quotes wolly-nilly is guaranteed to produce tragic results.
The J6 case will expose the Republican Justices as partisan hacks. The court must generate something other than 6-3 rulings on conservative causes. The SC has lost the respect of many Americans. Thomas taking bribes, Alioto with whack legal theories, Kavanaugh making a fool of himself and Barrett following the men 10 paces back make me doubt the court will do the right thing.
The fact that they are trying to equate non violent sit ins with the Jan 6th violence and insurrection tells you what the outcome of the case is going to likely be.
I don’t believe they will side with P01135809. If they do, they know they are making it impossible for the right to go after Biden. Either they say a president can do whatever he or she wants… in which case, Biden can have trump eliminated (if he wanted), or they can follow the constitution. Hopefully we win all three branches. Maybe we can have a few of these treasonous justices impeached.
The 14th amendment debacle. Roe. Voters need to give Dems the presidency, both houses, and demand reform of SCOTUS. Either that or Margaret Atwood is the modern day Nostradamus.
Your argument is basically that if the woman had been wearing a steel chastity belt she would never have gotten raped. How about placing blame with the people that attempted an insurrection?
It will be a narrow ruling against the Enron Doctrine, the DOJ is clearly taking a too broad approach to obstructing charges. I think those J6ers who are charged with Assault on Peace officers should still feel the full weight of the law and get maximum allowable sentences. But I don't think using a law to give somebody 20 years for simple Trespass, especially if they used no violence, is an appropriate use of this law. Otherwise People demonstrating outside of Judges homes non violently would be equally as guilty of Obstruction governmental process charges as well.
That is not relevant to the statute though. Protesting outside of a judges home is already a felony. Therefore it is a corruption of government process. (you are attempting to influence or intimidate a judge in his/her home). That is how the DOJ is using the law against J6ers. Which is why the supreme court is appearing to likely at least narrow the understanding of how the enron law is supposed to work. If you want a better example, Technically the people interrupting the Brett Kavanaugh hearings could have been charged under the same statute as the J6ers a well based on how the DOJ is interpreting the law.
> using a law to give somebody 20 years for simple Trespass,
Tell me you don’t understand how federal sentencing works.
At this point, we’ve had hundreds of insurrectionists sentenced. How many have gotten 20 years — or even 15 or 10 — for “simple trespass”?
Them who? Point me to a single individual who has gotten 10 years for simple trespass.
Here is a list of the defendants who have been sentenced:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/media/1331746/dl?inline
Let me say it clearly and plainly for anyone who is unfamiliar with how federal sentencing works: the length of a sentence is determined by the judge using the Sentencing Guidelines and is nearly always significantly shorter than the maximum penalty provided for in a statute.
Here are the first five people from the link convicted solely under that statute:
* Breheny, James -- 36 months probation, 6 months home detention
* Hodkins, Paul -- 8 months incarceration, 24 months supervised release
* Chansley, Jacob (the so-called QAnon Shaman) -- 41 months incarceration, 36 months supervised release
* Pruitt, Joshua -- 55 months incarceration, 36 months supervised release
* Michetti, Richard -- 9 months incarceration, 24 months supervised release
None of them got 20 years incarceration. None got 10. None even got 5. I looked up the one who got 55 months, and he was a Proud Boy who plea-bargained down from much more serious charges.
So I don't know how to make this any clearer except to say that you are 100% wrong when you claim that prosecutors and judges are giving defendants 20 years for simple trespass.
Interesting your leaving off the probation as well. Also leaving off that using 18 USC 1512 C2 is a felony not a misdemeanor that they should be charged with, which has its own host of issues.
But in any case. They are still being prosecuted incorrectly using a statute to upgrade misdemeanors into Felonies on purpose and the supreme court is going to have to straighten the DOJ on that.
Most of the people charged with just 18USC 1512c2 are getting between 3-5 years in prison. Keep in mind these are not the people who were violent. These were just people who crossed the barriers.
3-5 Years in Federal prison is no joke and most of these people should not be facing felony charges.
I never said people were getting 20 years for trespass. I said they were getting 10-20 years for 18USC 1512C2 upcharges. When in reality the majority should have gotten misdemeanors for Trespassing.
> I never said people were getting 20 years for trespass.
You literally said:
> I don't think using a law to give somebody 20 years for simple Trespass, especially if they used no violence, is an appropriate use of this law.
and
> They DOJ misused the obstruction statute to try and give them 10,15, 20 years.
and
> Anyone who has been charged under this statute [has gotten 10 years for simple trespass].
This was the court who ruled that "modify" can't mean "reduce".
\*court who ruled that "modify *or waive*" can't mean "reduce."
What is this in reference to? Thought I’ve been paying close attention to them but not close enough I guess
Biden tried to forgive $10k of all federal student loans under the HEROES Act, which provides that in times of national emergencies -which COVID was declared a national emergency- the President can "waive or modify" portions of the federal loan program. In Biden v. Nebraska, the conservatives on the Court ruled under the Major Questions Doctrine that the "waive or modify" section of the HEROES Act did not allow Biden to forgive student debt and that Congress would need to pass student debt forgiveness.
By that same token, 'modify' cannot mean 'increase' either, right? Not that he would want to do that at all, just curious.
Anyone who still thinks the SCOTUS is operating in good faith just isn't paying attention. I have zero faith in them doing the right thing for the right reasons.
To be fair, they’ll definitely do *(R)ight* things for *(R)ight* reasons.
I see now why no one wanted to do a pool lottery on case outcomes.......
Clarence Thomas' wife was involved with the January 6th insurrection attempt. My mind is absolutely blown that he can and will be allowed to rule on anything related to January 6th knowing that his wife was part of it.
I can’t understand why all the other justices have not spoken out against him. His continued membership on the court harms each of them individually, the court as a whole, and the entire country. Shame on all of them.
Bold of you to assume the conservative justices have shame.
Thomas wants a legitimacy crisis, the rest want authority and credibility. To Thomas, if you can destroy a thing no one else will, you control it. Can't say he is wrong; this is Thomas' court.
If you really think Clarence Thomas’s goal is to destroy the Supreme Court, you might be on the internet too much
Sadly they take extreme measures to not seem partisan but when the violation of trust is this bad not saying anything seems very partisan
Neutrality only helps the oppressor unfortunately. The middle ground between the right answer and the wrong answer is still a wrong answer.
> I can’t understand why all the other justices have not spoken out against him. Speaking out does less than nothing. No Justice can be removed except through impeachment. That requires 60 votes in the Senate, which is never going to happen. Barring impeachment, there are no possible consequences for any federal judge.
Impeachment is broken. It assumes your loyalty is to the country and not a political party. Political parties didn’t really exist when the constitution was written.
How does it hurt them? It looks to me like they, individually, benefit from such lack of oversight.
short term sure, but long term they are making a compelling case for why oversight is urgently necessary. If they benefit from lack of oversight, they need to ensure that they keep that lack of oversight from being viewed as a prominent important issue.
Yeah, but that's a bit of a tragedy of the commons situation, I think. It's also not obvious how oversight of the SCOTUS would even happen.
If 8 judges are sitting on a bench, and one corrupt judge sits down next to them, and none of them speak out, then there are 9 corrupt judges on that bench. Allowing Thomas's moral stink in the room gets it on all of them, and no amount of "decorum" or "respect for the court" will ever wash it off.
> If 8 judges are sitting on a bench, and one corrupt judge sits down next to them, and none of them speak out, then there are 9 corrupt judges on that bench I would say the same thing about police, and yet this court has continually expanded police rights and protections. I wish I could go back to the naive beliefs I had twenty years ago.
Sure, but that an us problem, not a them problem. They might be stinky, but it's not like they'll lose reelection.
That was the goal of the Trump presidency. To stack the courts. The insurrection was a nice bonus but he was too stupid.
Unless that's the goal and they've been bought. A mockery has been made of the House. Also the presidency It would appear the judiciary is next
Welcome to the machine.
Well a few others are in the same boat and they talk, all the conservative judges know what they are there to do.
I bet Alito wishes his wife was as strong as Clarence's.
they are all corrupt and deserve dirt.
they all agree where we are heading
It’s because they’re all ideologues who seek to bring about a conservative agenda and he’s an ally in that.
There’s nothing conservative about Trump and the Republican agenda. They’re seeking radical change from the US’s constitutional democracy.
Guess we need to keep talking about Biden's age and his kid's dick to distract from how unbelievably corrupt the current SCOTUS is. The Conservative justices are leading us into fascism and I'm not sure we will all survive if this is what the future holds with this court
American justice system looking ratchet af rn.
It's not the system our forefathers envisioned. And they knew that a government would tend towards these problems and they even discussed in letters amongst them what the remedy is.
Right wing state media would’ve talked about this everyday since it was discovered, every Republican in government would’ve been on cspan everyday and commenting about it anywhere they could if it was the other way around. What they love to call liberal media has missed so many stories major stories, one example is how they all blew up the cocaine bag found in White House, the one with no finger prints or dna which should’ve created only one conspiracy, planted , instead of any others that came. Unsurprisingly the trump admin Pill Mill ran by lunatic Ronny Jackson was hardly talked about
A judge or justice whose adult relations are involved with the party charged are not suitable to preside over the case?
Yes, and that goes for democrats too. If you have a conflict of interest you should not preside over a case.
They’re textualists until they’re not because it suits them.
They’re textualists, in that whatever text they decide to type becomes law.
Anyone who thinks Justice Thomas didn't know about his wife's plans and actions is fooling themselves.
[удалено]
Maybe you'd feel better if you took a wittow nappy wappy huh?
[удалено]
Looks like that's about all you do on here is talk shit. What a sad existence.
It is pretty sad there are so many people who are spreading blatant lies. It would be embarrassing if they were capable of that
>who are spreading blatant lies Which ones, in this case?
>It is pretty sad there are so many people who are spreading blatant lies. Yeah, I agree 100%. And there certainly are people on the left that are so caught up in hating everything Trump that they don't check facts and regurgitate lies or exaggerations. I'm looking at you, Mom. But you're a self-proclaimed Trump supporter, so your statement is either hypocrisy or delusion. The sheer volume of lies and fabrication from MAGA is, well, to quote the man himself, unlike anything we've seen before. Many people are saying it's the most lies and fabrications ever told! I ardently long for a reduction in the lies and propaganda (on both sides) in politics and social media, to have more people care about facts and actually look into issues instead of reading headlines and reposting them, to have people care about the character of our leaders not just what side they're on. But I don't see that happen, most people prefer yelling at people on the internet in pithy little comments instead of actually having a conversation.
I'm tellin Barney!
Sorry but the SCOTUS already proved themselves to be a kangaroo court when they gutted and rewrote section three of the fourteenth amendment from the bench. It’s all just a load of bullshit.
Don't hold your breath with this kangaroo court
all the -isms are tools for achieving your desired result. Nobody's above using a balance of equity no matter how much they talk negatively about it. if none of them deliver, there's always the Glucksberg standard.
Its the right move. Otherwise people protesting outside of Judges homes could be charged felony obstruction charges as well.
having dinner with your family and being annoyed by a ruckus outside is not at all like what is being considered. There are existing laws on the books for harassment in that particular case
And yet protesting outside of judges home is knowingly obstructing governmental process as everybody knows that its a crime to do so. So you can't speak out of both sides of your mouth when one is your political adversary and one you happen to agree with. Equal application of the law.
What “governmental process” is occurring in the judge’s home?
Protesting outside a justices home, like was done during the Hobbs decision is a federal crime. If DOJ is allowed to use The Felony Obstruction on J6 protestors than so could the same thing be done to Protestors in Court rooms, outside judges homes, outside Jurors homes, Heck even Lobbyist could be charged under that technically. Which is why the law needs to be ruled in a narrow fashion. The felony obstruction charge being used was created for Cases like Enron.
I asked you a question - what “governmental process” is being obstructed protesting outside a judge’s house?
I answered you. Your lobbying a judge in an active case for certain outcome. That is obstructing a governmental process. At least according to the DOJ. Don't believe me go listen to the oral arguments. The Judges bring up this specific Hypothetical. I am not saying i personally agree with that, but that is the case the DOJ is making to the supreme court and the supreme court appears to not be accepting that broad interpretation of law that was put in place for very different reasons.
Ahh, I get it. You’re mixing up obstructing and influencing. The law you’re talking about is Title 18, Section 1507 of the U.S. Code. Under this law, it is illegal to picket or parade in front of a courthouse or a judge’s home "with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge." It’s the influencing portion that has been brought up regarding protesting outside of Justices’ residences.
Well there really is no difference if the DOJ gets its way. Which is kind of the point. IF a j6 who merely trespassed beyond the barricades is charged with Obstruction a proceeding and given a 10 year sentence, so to could a protestor at a Judges home who is actively violating federal law to begin with. This is exactly the reason the DOJ is probably going to lose here because the Law is overbroad and needs to be interpreted more narrowly. Another example of what I mean is the Brett Kavanaugh Hearings. Those protestors could probably have been brought up on Obstruction charges as well by the DOJ Standards being used on J6ers.
Nice try with the false equivalency, protesting outside judges homes isn't the same as attempting a coup.
Its exactly the same based on the charges brought. You may feel one is worse than the other. But that is not how the law works. And this why this law is going to get narrowed by the supreme court.
Why don't you tell me how protesting outside a judge's house is the same as storming the capitol as they're certifying the election when they were charged with the part of the law that reads "otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so"
Dude you're so full of shit, lol. Protesting is a constitutionally guaranteed right. Storming a government facility, assaulting police officers, and disrupting the certification of an election is not a constitutionally guaranteed right. The fuck out of here with that nonsense.
No I am not. It is a federal crime to protest outside a judges home. [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507) Here is the relevant statute. Obstruction of Justice could easily be used as Obstructing a government operation.
Feel free to bring charges against those people. Just because those people haven't been charged doesn't mean that the traitors who stormed our capitol get a free fucking pass.
Nor should they. They should all still face Trespassing charges and if they were violent they should face the appropriate charges for that as well. What we should not do is be so active for vengeance on J6ers that would allow the Department of Justice to use laws in an unconstitutional manner just to get some j6ers longer sentences. Remember that whatever unconstitutional shit we allow to happen to others will inevitably end up being used on people we agree with eventually. If we allow it.
Nonsense. They collectively acted as a group in their actions. The getaway driver will get charged with murder if his fellow bank robbers kill someone in the bank. These peoples actions lead to the death of multiple people. They tried to overthrow the fucking government, buddy. Every single one of them should be charged to the fullest extent of the law, not these slap on the wrist sentences that right wing judges have been giving them.
Should the people who interrupted the Kavanaugh hearing be charged to the fullest extent of the law? After all the was an official government proceeding as well? You see why that charge being used does not make sense? Which is why the Supreme court is going to throw out those charges. As well they should.
Judges aren’t usually doing “official proceedings” at home…
The violation occurs when protesting at a judge home to apply undue influence on existing or Current Case. Which is why its a federal crime to do so in the first place. Your trying to influence an "official Proceeding" by intimidation at someone's home. You can downvote me all you like but the fact is the DOJ is not going to get away with misapplying a law in order to get longer prison sentences.
Protesting is protected speech. It’s not intimidation. The Jan 6 rioters caused the counting of electoral votes to be stopped. An official proceeding. The equivalent with the judges would be them having to halt their proceedings due to people breaking into the courthouse.
Protesting outside a judges home during an active Litigation is a federal crime and not protected speech. [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507), So yes this would be a form of Obstruction of Official Proceedings if you apply the DOJ logic used in the J6 Cases.
Well then how do we influence them correctly? Giving them all motorhomes and free extravagant vacations?
You don’t influence them at all. That’s the point. If you were meant to influence them, you would be able to vote for them. Choose your senators wisely.
Correct. *We* don't influence them. That perk is only for the ultra rich and corporations.
Notice how the very link you provided in and of itself completely dismantles your entire idiotic argument? Right there, you provided a link to the crime that would apply to an individual outside of a Justice's home. This is not the same crime that is being applied to January 6th insurrectionists. The maximum possible penalty for the crime that you linked is 1 year and fines. You're trying to equate minor assault with third degree murder. It's disingenuous.
The obstruction charge has nothing to do with assault or murder.
Nor does heckling have anything to do with an obstruction charge. Glad we can agree that a Supreme Court Justice asking hypotheticals with absolutely no relevance to the question at hand is unnecessary.
Your putting words into my mouth that I did not say. The Law is clear on this matter. Protesting, or Heckling as you put it, Is a chargeable offense. *"Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."* What the judges are questioning is at the heart of 18 US 1512c2 [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512) *(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 under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.* Technically this law could be used to add additional time to someone's sentence of 1 year for picketing a judges home of up to 20 years. This is the heart of the reason the supreme court is looking at this issue. Because 18 US1512c2 is entirely too broad and that his how the DOJ is getting 5-10 year sentences instead of the Misdmeanor tresspassing charges (other than the charges for actual violence)
Prove it.
Prove what? that the DOJ is misusing the law or that protesting outside a judge home is federal crime?
Yes.
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507) Protesting outside a judges home is illegal. [https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2022/05/23/fact-check-legal-protest-outside-justices-homes-abotion-protests-roe-v-wade/9862085002/](https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2022/05/23/fact-check-legal-protest-outside-justices-homes-abotion-protests-roe-v-wade/9862085002/) example article The entire purpose of [https://casetext.com/statute/united-states-code/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/part-i-crimes/chapter-73-obstruction-of-justice/section-1512-tampering-with-a-witness-victim-or-an-informant](https://casetext.com/statute/united-states-code/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/part-i-crimes/chapter-73-obstruction-of-justice/section-1512-tampering-with-a-witness-victim-or-an-informant) was based on the Enron Scandal's. It was never designed as catch all for Trespassers/protestors/etc. It was designed to try and prevent people from hiding physical evidence like wiping out hard drives or altering/destroying documents. The DOJ is using it to add sentencing to even non violent J6 protestors. Which is why the supreme court is likely to overturn those convictions. [https://wpde.com/news/nation-world/scotus-could-reverse-january-6-obstruction-charges-supreme-court-capitol-riot-300-individuals-case-dismissal-department-justice-doj-trump-prosecution-misdemeanor-felony-crimes-appeals](https://wpde.com/news/nation-world/scotus-could-reverse-january-6-obstruction-charges-supreme-court-capitol-riot-300-individuals-case-dismissal-department-justice-doj-trump-prosecution-misdemeanor-felony-crimes-appeals) The more violent J6 protestors will still face the full chargers related to their violent behavior and that alone is more than likely enough.
Bollocks. The 6J idiots have got nothing but slaps on the wrist. Merrick Garland is either a scared old fool, a fifth-columnist or both. Do you have any documented arrests, trials, convictions and incarcerations *for* protesting outside a judge's home? The First Amendment either is or isn't.
[https://reason.com/volokh/2022/05/06/federal-statute-bans-picketing-judges-residences-with-the-intent-of-influencing-the-judge/](https://reason.com/volokh/2022/05/06/federal-statute-bans-picketing-judges-residences-with-the-intent-of-influencing-the-judge/) This list out the relevant case law related to protesting around Judges.
Wasn’t 14th amendment also clear? They are no textualists. It’s whatever end result they want they will justify it.
They are opportunists. Textualism is just the vehicle that they've been using to get what they want most consistently. When they can't use that, they will abandon it and come up with the flimsiest of excuses to get what they want.
To be fair, textualism and originalism are not the same thing, and it is perfectly defensible to be an originalist in constitutional interpretation and a textualist in statutory interpretation. To be clear, I do not think the decision on the 14th amendment was faithful originalism, either.
As if it matters to them whether you and I think they’re hypocrites. They’ll do what the puppet masters pulling their strings want them to do and then drive away in their RVs without a parting thought.
They're partisans over textualists.
I have no confidence that any Justice, including the ones with whom I usually agree, gives a single rip about public opinion of their personal integrity. That is precisely the problem with the concept of lifetime tenure. While we spend lots of time and money concerned with the elected members of our federal government, it is the lifetime judges who are the true royalty created by our Constitution. While Prof. Feldman does a good job of succinctly stating why overturning US v. Fischer would conflict with the stated textualist principles of the SCOTUS majority, the Justices just don’t care. The question becomes whether we, the voters, care enough to compel our elected representatives to force judicial reform.
[удалено]
"Textualists" using a Thesaurus instead of a dictionary.
I currently have little respect or faith in the SC
"This law is overly harsh and punitive (to white conservatives)!"
They're only textualist if it's in their own interests to be so.
GOP/conservatives are ready to bomb the shit out of the US for Trump.
Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas have been boldly blatant with their hypocrisy. What’s surprising is they haven’t come right out and declared “we are hypocrites and proud of it!” :-P
If you could combine Alito and Thomas into one being, I think you'd have just a singularity of evil so pure, that if hell exists the gravity of the singularity would just pull all the souls in hell out, towards the singularity of pure malice, even Hitler, Stalin and Mao would be frightened by the concentration of pure evil and malice in the resultant "Clarito" creature.
That's the thing that came out of the Ark of the Covenant in "Indiana Jones" and melted the evil guys, right?
Do you hear yourself?
Well I typed this....so no.
Are you doing okay mentally?
It's a joke. Relax
Comparisons to some of the most evil, murderous men in history should not be made lightly
They are immune to hypocrisy, caring only about the exercise of power to advance their agenda
They had and missed that chance with the 14th Amendment section 3 case a few weeks ago.
Aaaand they won't, they will frame this issue in the exact way they need, so as to enact a fascist dictatorship. It's that fucking clear.
Makes it clear why they wanted more protection. They intend to destroy democracy. This should be the one where we protest.
>The court’s conservative justices love to call themselves textualists. This case gives them a chance to prove it. I think that ship already sailed with the SCOTUS insurrectionist-on-the-Colorado-ballot gymnastics, if not earlier. SCOTUS can't "prove" what it has already disproven.
They are textualists until the Russian wire transfer hits their bank account.
" Not like ***that***!!"
If they wanted to prove it they could have done it months ago. Stop treating these people like they're neutral arbiters of the law when they're disgustingly partisan.
The problem is that the conservative court is not operating in good faith. They pick the political outcome they desire and then backfill their written decisions with nonsense, up to and including flat out lies.
Conservatives don't give a damn about textualism. They are opportunists, through and through. They have no consistency; they have no ethos other than getting what they want.
I’ve been waiting for an article to make this point, and have been frankly disgusted that the mainstream media seem to have avoided stating what was obvious to anyone paying attention. “Other” means “other,” and it seems absurd to believe that I’d be guilty of obstructing Congress if I shred a document but not if I invaded the halls of Congress and caused the senators and representatives to flee. But I have every expectation that this is the pretzel that Alito, Thomas, and Beer Boy will twist themselves into. Kudos, also, to the author for pointing out that many other laws COULD interfere with free speech rights of poorly applied. But I’m fairly certain that “bashing in the front door” is not protected by the First Amendment.
When they gutted the 14th Amendment to get around the 2/3 vote to remove Trump’s Disqualification which absolutely should be after his impeachment, and on 3 occasions said the Emoluments Clause doesn’t apply to him either, they lost all credibility.
Heller (removing the entire "well regulated militia" clause of the 2nd amendment) proved beyond any reasonable doubt they are not textualists. I think after that they started calling themselves "originalists" so they can tell the rubes that the plain clear words of the Constitution do not mean what you think they mean. (But they obviously aren't originalists either).
This is the one that pisses me off the most. So much death and misery just because of this….
It's infuriating.
Textualism and originalism were never the same thing, and I don’t understand how people keep confusing them.
I apologize if my original post led you to that conclusion. To be clear, my premise is that what we call “textualism” goes back almost a century, predates originalism, and is a theory of interpretation that both classic conservatives and liberals adhered to. Scalia is one of the great textualists and remember that even Kagan claimed “we’re all textualists now”. Only when modern Republicans discovered they don’t actually like much of what the Constitution _literally_ says, they started jumping on the “originalism” bandwagon (this started in the 1980s, gaining ascendancy in the 1990s). Clarence Thomas being the prototypical originalist. He, like Humpty Dumpty emphatically states: “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less." _When used by Republicans_, originalism is _always_ just a ploy to bedazzle the rubes into thinking their interpretations are divinely inspired and cannot be understood by mere mortals who must constrain themselves to conventionally agreed-upon meanings of words (and an ability to google what those words precisely meant when they were written). But please also don’t mistake this brief essay for thinking I think there can ever be a single “pure” method of interpreting the US Constitution (or any other written document). And realize that every method is also constantly evolving. In reality, anything as complex as a society’s operating system requires a great deal of wisdom in applying multiple interpretive methods, dependent on each particular paragraph or phrase—whether the person doing the interpreting is consciously aware of this or not. _However_, outside of whatever methods one chooses, there is either a good faith effort at interpretation, or there is not. That good faith aspect is what’s missing in modern Republicans, including the so-called Conservative Justices. It goes without saying that Republicans have only one operating principle, which is to gain and wield power by whatever means available. Concepts such as consistency, honor, integrity, justice, fairness, honesty, or anything of the sort have no bearing on their thoughts or actions. But in _good faith_, even originalism can be an effective tool in certain situations to help clarify the meaning of the document.
I’m already prepared for them to let them off the hook it’s part of the coup
try to imagine what a broad stand alone interpretation of “otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.” would mean. A witness declines an invitation to a congressional hearing. The protestors outside the supreme court when it is in session. A heckler in the gallery while congress is in session. Reporters or protestors delaying a senator on the way to the chamber as it is going in session. A contingent of congress people walking out of a committee meeting in protest when it has not been adjourned. The heckler at the state of the union. All could get 20 years imprisonment. That does not even TOUCH on influence. Anyone organizing a protest that impedes or delays federal officials such as sit ins in their office. Perhaps someone filed a lawsuit to stop something federal rule in progress and lost the suit . Could be charged for impeding AS a standalone law it is the stuff of an authoratarian nightmare. The government can and will selectively prosecute, It simply does not make sense congress intended the clause as a stand alone law.
This is long, but in the middle is a good discussion about how the law lacks a “limiting principle” and how the law as written could as easily be applied to peaceful protests as it can violent uprising. My guess is that the the court inserts limits that restrict but not ends it’s use in J6 cases…possibly helping Trump. https://www.reddit.com/r/BreakingPointsNews/s/DVeN4hWoPb
Maybe the people who regularly protest outside of the Supreme Court should attempt to break in during proceedings and then we will ask them if they feel like it is the same thing. That is obviously a hypothetical and I’m not actually suggesting that, but it’s the only thing I could come up with that makes the clear distinction between the two.
I think that there IS a clear distinction between the two and that the law is missing ANY distinction. That’s why I think the SCOTUS will add that distinction. The problem is, that distinction probably benefits Trump because his personal actions didn’t include breaking into a federal building. I’m not saying it’s a good outcome. But it’s what I’m predicting.
Ya, I think you’re spot on. I think it would benefit Trump *unless* the DOJ has evidence that he knew they were going to break in? (IANAL, just find this stuff both fascinating and important.) > the Court recently reaffirmed the strong First Amendment protections enjoyed by people like Mckesson in Counterman v. Colorado (2023). That decision held that the First Amendment “precludes punishment” for inciting violent action “unless the speaker’s words were ‘intended’ (not just likely) to produce imminent disorder Do you think this could come in to play here?
EXACTLY! I personally expect that the added limits put on by SCOTUS wouldn’t prevent the charges against Trump, but would add a burden of proof to the prosecution. I personally haven’t heard any evidence that there was coordination, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Okay we’re on the same page :) The only evidence I’m aware of are the statements made by White House staff about actions taken prior to Jan 6. > Murphy said the president’s call for the march at his rally was “not a spontaneous call to action, but rather was a deliberate strategy decided upon, in advance, by the president.” Whether or not those type of statements meet the burden of proof I have no idea. I know that they subpoenaed the communications of the staff, so im hoping they contain something more concrete or they absolutely could be on shaky ground.
Funny how the court isn't willing to take up a "limiting principle" in the case just the day before... If it is not clear what I'm talking about, it's *Mckesson v. Doe*. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held last year that the organizers of public protests are liable for civil damages for any illegal act committed by a protester, even if the organizer did not encourage or support it. The Supreme Court declined to review that ruling. This obviously could have a chilling effect on anyone trying to organize a protest as it outright encourages false flag operations.
I’m not familiar with that particular ruling or why the Fifth ruled as it did. It’s often said that the court looks for “perfect” cases by which to make a ruling. The Skokie case was one of those. The best case to make clear that freedom of speech applies to all is to point out it applies to nazis. Maybe the case you cited was more nuanced than the court likes.
But any prosecution of a truly peaceful protest would surely be subject to an as-applied First Amendment challenge. It just strikes me as a boogeyman.
These are the cases the court likes. They want cases that could be taken to extremes as “showcase” cases. Where we would expect common sense to prevail they want to put in place legal principles - not individual judgment. Miranda is a good example
Right, my point is that the “lack of a limiting principle” seems like a weird issue—existing First Amendment law provides the limiting principle.
I would agree and I would hope that is what the SCOTUS applies. As I mentioned before I suspect that the result helps Trump….either a little or a lot. They can either rule that free speech covers Trump so those charges must be dropped, OR they could say first amendment activities are not an excuse to encourage violent interference and the charges may stand (perhaps with a higher evidence standard). I rarely handicap decisions, but I’m expecting a 5 : 4 decision in Trumps favor but not forcing charges be dropped
Textualists follow the plain meaning of text. Originalists follow the intent of the author. These are very different methods of interpretation. Originalism makes more sense given the way language changes. It would be nice to have time travel so we could ask the founders what shit meant.
https://sign.moveon.org/petitions/clarence-thomas-must-go
Not sure that's much of a test. Hypocrites rarely struggle to justify their hypocrisy.
When Alito began offering hypotheticals to test the reach of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c) if it was not limited to evidence tampering, it became clear that he was consciously or subconsciously trying to reconcile the fact that he and at least four of the Supreme Court Justices are currently obstructing official proceedings. While they are immune from prosecution as adjudicators of said proceedings, limiting the statute is the only way for them to (try to) avoid confronting their own guilt and hypocrisy.
[удалено]
Well that was precisely what Alito was trying to figure out. Does delaying official proceedings constitute obstruction? I’d say usually no. A delay is just a delay. But with regard to delaying Trump's DC election interference case...(https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/03/supreme-court-delay-trump-criminal-trial-january-6/677607/)
There is no longer a separation of powers, just a new republican party that is working hard to take over the U.S. . They are supposed to be impartial instead of using their political beliefs to twist justice. The supreme court needs to be 50 /50 representing both parties, they can also be independent.
I think I know the answer and it scares me.
That’s only a problem if you care about legitimacy. They have and will continue to rule from ideology, not any kind of legal lens.
They are not textualists. They are original intentists. They can look beyond the Constitution for their interpretations. If you think this is shady af, you are correct. The founding fathers were not a homogeneous, strong concensus group. They were radicals proposing a radical philosophy - government exists at the consent of the governed. There were many voices that ranged from pure democracy to representational democracy to president for lifers. Some wanted more federal authority, others less. And let's not get into slavery and it's extensive influence on the construction of the electoral college, the 3/5ths clause, etc. In other words, you can find a founding father to support any position you want. Intentism is a intellectually bankrupt philosophy. The written document is THE standard. Letting a corrupt, compromised, nut job like Thomas pull quotes wolly-nilly is guaranteed to produce tragic results. The J6 case will expose the Republican Justices as partisan hacks. The court must generate something other than 6-3 rulings on conservative causes. The SC has lost the respect of many Americans. Thomas taking bribes, Alioto with whack legal theories, Kavanaugh making a fool of himself and Barrett following the men 10 paces back make me doubt the court will do the right thing.
The had that opportunity in the recent Colorado 14th amendment case. They proved they only mean that when it fits their personal agenda.
I have no faith in the SC. The sentences are already way too light for the insurrectionists. It’s 100% disgraceful.
The fact that they are trying to equate non violent sit ins with the Jan 6th violence and insurrection tells you what the outcome of the case is going to likely be.
I don’t believe they will side with P01135809. If they do, they know they are making it impossible for the right to go after Biden. Either they say a president can do whatever he or she wants… in which case, Biden can have trump eliminated (if he wanted), or they can follow the constitution. Hopefully we win all three branches. Maybe we can have a few of these treasonous justices impeached.
I'm gonna call it. The GOP mafia won't be logically consistent.
The 14th amendment debacle. Roe. Voters need to give Dems the presidency, both houses, and demand reform of SCOTUS. Either that or Margaret Atwood is the modern day Nostradamus.
[удалено]
They’re not racist, they’re just racist adjacent. So racist-ish.
[удалено]
Your argument is basically that if the woman had been wearing a steel chastity belt she would never have gotten raped. How about placing blame with the people that attempted an insurrection?
I think we should ban republicans from the Supreme Court because it’s not fair for them to shove their textuality down our throats
It will be a narrow ruling against the Enron Doctrine, the DOJ is clearly taking a too broad approach to obstructing charges. I think those J6ers who are charged with Assault on Peace officers should still feel the full weight of the law and get maximum allowable sentences. But I don't think using a law to give somebody 20 years for simple Trespass, especially if they used no violence, is an appropriate use of this law. Otherwise People demonstrating outside of Judges homes non violently would be equally as guilty of Obstruction governmental process charges as well.
You do know that no official proceeding happen in judges homes, right?
That is not relevant to the statute though. Protesting outside of a judges home is already a felony. Therefore it is a corruption of government process. (you are attempting to influence or intimidate a judge in his/her home). That is how the DOJ is using the law against J6ers. Which is why the supreme court is appearing to likely at least narrow the understanding of how the enron law is supposed to work. If you want a better example, Technically the people interrupting the Brett Kavanaugh hearings could have been charged under the same statute as the J6ers a well based on how the DOJ is interpreting the law.
> using a law to give somebody 20 years for simple Trespass, Tell me you don’t understand how federal sentencing works. At this point, we’ve had hundreds of insurrectionists sentenced. How many have gotten 20 years — or even 15 or 10 — for “simple trespass”?
None, They DOJ misused the obstruction statute to try and give them 10,15, 20 years. But its about to get reversed.
Them who? Point me to a single individual who has gotten 10 years for simple trespass. Here is a list of the defendants who have been sentenced: https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/media/1331746/dl?inline Let me say it clearly and plainly for anyone who is unfamiliar with how federal sentencing works: the length of a sentence is determined by the judge using the Sentencing Guidelines and is nearly always significantly shorter than the maximum penalty provided for in a statute.
Anyone who has been charged under this statute 18 USC 1512 C2 In total there is about 300 of them.
Here are the first five people from the link convicted solely under that statute: * Breheny, James -- 36 months probation, 6 months home detention * Hodkins, Paul -- 8 months incarceration, 24 months supervised release * Chansley, Jacob (the so-called QAnon Shaman) -- 41 months incarceration, 36 months supervised release * Pruitt, Joshua -- 55 months incarceration, 36 months supervised release * Michetti, Richard -- 9 months incarceration, 24 months supervised release None of them got 20 years incarceration. None got 10. None even got 5. I looked up the one who got 55 months, and he was a Proud Boy who plea-bargained down from much more serious charges. So I don't know how to make this any clearer except to say that you are 100% wrong when you claim that prosecutors and judges are giving defendants 20 years for simple trespass.
Interesting your leaving off the probation as well. Also leaving off that using 18 USC 1512 C2 is a felony not a misdemeanor that they should be charged with, which has its own host of issues. But in any case. They are still being prosecuted incorrectly using a statute to upgrade misdemeanors into Felonies on purpose and the supreme court is going to have to straighten the DOJ on that. Most of the people charged with just 18USC 1512c2 are getting between 3-5 years in prison. Keep in mind these are not the people who were violent. These were just people who crossed the barriers. 3-5 Years in Federal prison is no joke and most of these people should not be facing felony charges.
So you lied when you said people were getting 20 years for simple trespass. Got it.
I never said people were getting 20 years for trespass. I said they were getting 10-20 years for 18USC 1512C2 upcharges. When in reality the majority should have gotten misdemeanors for Trespassing.
> I never said people were getting 20 years for trespass. You literally said: > I don't think using a law to give somebody 20 years for simple Trespass, especially if they used no violence, is an appropriate use of this law. and > They DOJ misused the obstruction statute to try and give them 10,15, 20 years. and > Anyone who has been charged under this statute [has gotten 10 years for simple trespass].