Posted on 04/17/2024 6:36:34 AM PDT by Tench_Coxe
The Supreme Court’s conservatives appeared skeptical Tuesday of the way federal prosecutors have deployed a felony charge devised in the aftermath of the 20-year-old Enron financial scandal against about 350 rioters convicted or accused of storming the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
However, after nearly two hours of argument on the subject, it remained unclear whether the justices had a consensus on how to narrow the interpretation of the law, which prohibits obstructing congressional proceedings. It seemed possible that the court could settle on a view of the law that would preserve the vast majority of the cases the Justice Department filed that used the obstruction statute to level a serious felony charge at a Jan. 6 defendant.
(snip)
Several of the Republican-appointed justices appeared to question whether the Justice Department has been evenhanded in its prosecution of the Jan. 6 defendants, echoing claims that they are being treated far more harshly than other protesters who have disrupted congressional proceedings or even arguments at the Supreme Court.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
At the heart of it, it looks like the DOJ stretched the interpretation of the law to apply it to the people who were around the Capitol on Jan 6, and as a way to charge Trump as well. Which loosely translates to the DOJ saying "the law is whatever we say it is", which I suppose is true as long as they're they guys with the guns.
As noted in the article, that interpretation by the DOJ is not uniformly applied. Which brings to mind the adage that selective prosecution of a law is worse than having no law at all.
It is astounding to me that the justices, in light of that, are actually entertaining the argument that "but in this case its different", and considering how to craft a ruling that encapsulates that without confirming to a casual observer that the application os the law it indeed arbitrary depending on whose 'side' one is on.
To me, who is not a justice, it would seem clear cut:
DOJ took liberties with interpreting the law, applied it selectively based on political consideration, and is asking the court to endorse/enshrine it.
It would be more honest for Garlands/Bidens/Obamas DOJ to forego the theater and just publicly state: "we have the guns, so we make the rules."
A protest is not an insurrection...and there was no intent to stop the proceeding...and it wouldn’t matter anyways. Each state had submitted their “ballots” and the VP’s role is simply reading them into the record.
Had Trump not been President..we would not have gotten the SC we now have. Providence?
The whole purpose behind the Constitutional right to peacefully assemble IS to obstruct, get attention, and make a point. They purposely included this right to slow down, discourage, and expose the action/process if there is an issue with that action/process.
Like picket lines.
Several liberal groups have interrupted and “obstructed” usiness in capitol and federal buldings, and did as much or more damage as Jan 6 protestors, but were never charged with felonies- hopefully laywers for Trump will point out the hypocrisy and selective enforcement tactics of the left
Politico’s first sentence tells the truth (that the law was passed to prohibit tampering with or destruction of evidence material to a judicial proceeding).
Next Politico proclaims that the law “prohibits obstruction of congressional proceedings.” Uh, NO, it doesn’t. That is the crux of the issue before the Supreme Court. Politico is pushing the DNC-DoJ misinterpretation as if it were fact.
i am curious what the leftist Justices asked. Were they skeptical of the DoJ construct or partisan hacks?
It’s a poorly written law which leaves the question of application to the whims of the prosecution. So grannies get the harshest sentence and Jamaal Bowman gets a wink.
As Alito chastised the Justice Department for going too easy on some recent outbursts at the Supreme Court, he overstated his case by saying, “I don’t think any one of those protesters has been sentenced to even one day in prison.”
In fact, in 2017, a judge gave brief jail sentences to five people who disrupted a 2015 high court argument by shouting in protest of the Citizens United campaign finance decision. Four were sentenced to a weekend in jail, while one got two weekends behind bars, the Washington Post reported.
Smith insisted in a court filing last week that even a complete loss for the government in the case heard Tuesday would not undermine the obstruction charges Trump faces because prosecutors can prove he intended to interfere with the tallying of electoral votes.
“The Supreme Court’s conservatives appeared skeptical Tuesday of the way federal prosecutors have deployed a felony charge devised in the aftermath of the 20-year-old Enron financial scandal against about 350 rioters convicted or accused of storming the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.”
Do they every say The Supreme Court’s liberals?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.