Posted on 04/16/2024 11:54:20 AM PDT by libstripper
The Supreme Court spent about an hour and a half on Tuesday morning arguing over whether to make it much harder for the Justice Department to prosecute hundreds of people who joined the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol.
It appears, after Tuesday’s arguments, that a majority of the justices will side with the insurrectionists — though it is far from clear how those justices will justify such an outcome.
The case, known as Fischer v. United States, involved a federal law which provides that anyone who “obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so” commits a very serious federal felony and can be imprisoned for up to 20 years — although, as Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar pointed out during Tuesday’s argument, actual sentences against January 6 defendants convicted under this statute have been much shorter, normally ranging from a little less than one year to slightly over two years.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
Vox is a hardcore leftist extremist outlet.
Though it is far from clear how those justices will justify such an outcome.
Not because they were not insurrectionists only peaceful protesters they didn’t burn the place down or kill anyone or hold anybody hostage but security did murder someone.
The left always claims the extreme charges when it’s not their tribe doing arson and murder.
The law broadly applied can be used against anyone who walks in and holds up a statement poster.
What is the freaking case name?
I only see 2 cases argued on 4/15/24
23-108 Snyder v. United States
23-50 Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon
Neither one appears to reference Jan. 6 at all
Would they have held the Congressional Hearings given that pipe bombs were found in the area?
Should you use an obscure Banking Regulation to make protesting a felony?
Never mind. I apparently needed to refresh the arguments page.
Here’s a direct link to the arguments for the case:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/23-5572_4gd5.pdf
“Insurrectionists”???
Baloney!!!
They’re PATRIOTS!!!
Definitely no bias in the article. /s
what a biased article
how about equal justice under the law
free speech
selective prosecution to penalize free speech you don’t agree with
cruel and unusual punishment
just to name a few off the top of my head!
exactly!
Bkmk
OMG, I am sick and tired of them being called “Insurrectionists” when they were never charged with that crime or convicted of one. They were protesters, and if they had chosen to block the Golden Gate Bridge of traffic, they would be off scot free. Hell, if they were pushing hatred against the Jews in Senate Chambers, they would be given lunch and a stipend for a ride share home.
The “insurrectionists” were many...but not the Patriots protesting tyranny. However, because they are fbi, cia, congresscritters, justice department losers and so forth it is likely justice will long in coming to these crimnals.
I ask...is Bowman in jail without bail? No? Why the hell not? He impeded an official vote on the floor so he should have been arrested! Period.
No matter...you have the right to protest...
“It appears, after Tuesday’s arguments, that a majority of the justices will side with the insurrectionists..”
No bias in that reporting /s
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.