Breaking Kaboom — Supreme Court rules 6-3 for Fischer. Cooked up J6 obstruction felonies are thrown out.

SCOTUS BLOG via Citizens Free Press ^ | June 28, 2024 | Staff

[redheadedshannon]

Honestly, I don’t think was Amy Coney Barrett ruling legitimately. I’d guess on an issue this big & very partisan, Roberts likely asked the a judge from each ideological side to switch opinions “to preserve respect for the court”. I honestly think you probably couldn’t get any of the men to do that kind of thing- women are more willing to accommodate with things like that. I don’t think they were giving into liberals- the vote count stayed 6-3. I think they just had each side switch a member to give it credibility.

With constant attacks on the Supreme Court, that’s definitely Roberts biggest concern. Any time you are seeing a member from each side unexpectedly transpose judicial opinions, I think that is a safe assumption. Now, if it’s a judge on one side ruling similarly on a specific issue multiple times- then I think we could assume they’ve gone soft. You could also assume they are a softy on an issue, if it’s just one judges ruling without an opposite ruling to offset it.

I know to us as conservatives & constitutionalists, we instinctively would want any governing institution to think it had to do something like this to prevent itself from being attacked. To us, we instinctively think that coming up with things like this is only happening because Democrats act like babies when they don’t get their way. I agree! I’m just saying I think that’s what is happening. To think that they aren’t having discussions about whether things look biased or partisan, is wishful thinking on our parts. There is one of the two major parties advocating court-packing, unconstitutional Congressional intrusion on their authority & attacks on individual members. 😉

[AndyJackson]

You make a point, and I have often wondered if this happens either to prevent major decisison from going all one way without a good argument to show that the other side of this was actually considered. And perhaps ducking the media censorship case on stanking was a part of this - since it isn't really deciding the issue, since it gave the lower court the opportunity to grant intervention by parties who have actual demonstrable injuries, such as my internet income was destroyed because of governmnent caused censorship, which does add one real party to the case. And there are enough big decisions here to give the other side pause, enough breaks put on the deep state that the warning sign is there. If you can't adjust the plain text of a statute to cover the regulatory position you want to take and can't fine someone without a jury trial, then you can't make a third party censor him either.

But still, I really hope that this is ACB taking one for the home team and not just writing a heart-throb story that doesn't bear intense scrutiny, like if the law says we can throw anyone in jail for the crime of we don't like them, then that is the law and off to jail you go, which is sort of the current DOJ / DC Circuit interpretation this law. Maybe it makes the point for those who read it how absurd the DOJ/DC circuit interpretaion really is.

Anyway the Deep State has been dealt a few mortal blows here.