Posted on 06/29/2024 8:14:27 AM PDT by CondoleezzaProtege
Jackson surprised. In Fischer v. United States, she broke with the court’s other liberals on Friday and joined a 6-3 ruling for the Capitol riot defendant in the case. “Our commitment to equal justice and the rule of law requires the courts to faithfully apply criminal laws as written, even in periods of national crisis,” she wrote in a concurrence, “and even when the conduct alleged is indisputably abhorrent.”
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote in his majority opinion, which Jackson joined, that the government’s reading of the law was implausible. A general phrase, such as influencing a proceeding, is “given a more focused meaning by the terms linked to it.” Because 1512(c) enumerates ways to corruptly influence a proceeding by impairing evidence, Roberts reasoned, judges must read its prohibition on “otherwise” influencing a proceeding to refer to similar conduct.
The dissent, by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, instead read the statute out of its context to cover “all sorts of actions that affect or interfere with official proceedings.”
Barrett, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, claimed that the adverbial “corruptly” requirement in the statute “should screen out” innocent behavior. That is hardly a limit if any act influencing a proceeding is covered. It merely invites prosecutors to divine the motivations of their targets. People are more likely to divine “corrupt” motives among those with whom they disagree politically.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I’ve thought about it. I think it’s more that she voted with the tribe, rather than gave any deep thought to what she was doing.
...just my take.
Barrett is an absolute disaster who clearly misrepresented her views on the Constitution during her confirmation hearing. I’m beginning to think she has some legal issues with the adoptions of her kids from Haiti.
Realistically speaking this justice ‘on the Left’ knows the piled on charges used against President Trump’s supporters could theoretically be used against Leftists in the future.
We are in an age when authorities want to shut down protests label all protests extreme astroturf racism-extremism to discredit and shut down any protest movements.
Considering she doesn’t even know what the definition of a woman is.....you may be correct.
She is an idiot and DEI Hire. She is always different, but for all the wrong reasons. she couldn’t describe a women.
As an aside, these clowns can tell you exactly what a man and woman is, as soon as they start talking about a draft. Funny how that works. LOL.
Good grief.
Cite SPECIFICALLY in an opinion she signed onto what you disagree with her on.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett is worthless.
Kadeesha Jackson brown? She can’t even decide genders! Guess she could be independent of thinking. So the wise Latinx and keg-one are left hanging?
hopefully she will “grow” into a swing vote the way many Republican judges have over the decades!
What she did was show how over the top the liberal iterpretation was and it allowed the majority to argue how stupid the dissent - and the DC Circuit was - and how dangerous there position was, putting both protestors and lobbyists at jeopardy. It will have gotten K-streets attention.
I think she is a squish, but, maybe here there is something deeper going on. I don't buy it myself, but you have to consider the alternatives.
You also have to look at ACBs record as a whole from which you could rightly conclude naaah - she's a squish.
Barrett is an ENEMY of justice in America, a real fool.
Here’s one from Wednesday. Barrett wrote the majority opinion.
———
Justices side with Biden over government’s influence on social media content moderation
Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett cited the lack of any “concrete link” between the restrictions that the plaintiffs complained of and the conduct of government officials – and in any event, she concluded, a court order blocking communication between government officials and social media companies likely would not have any effect on decision-making by those platforms, which can continue to enforce their policies.
Justice Samuel Alito dissented, in an opinion joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. Suggesting that the case could be “one of the most important free speech cases to reach” the Supreme Court “in years,” Alito would have ruled both that the plaintiffs had standing to bring their lawsuit and that “the White House coerced Facebook into censoring” at least one plaintiff’s speech.
You do not really believe that this will happen, do you?
Roberts convinced the two noobs Brown and Barret to flip flop their votes to give the the press and public the appearance of the high courts absence of political bias.
Really a transparent move.
anything is possible, but unlikely for a liberal. But this particular ruling gives me a glimmer of hope.
Interesting thesis. Plausible, knowing the cloak-and-dagger nature of DC.
She is still "young" but so far I sense she has a strong "John Paul Stevens" vibe. She could be a disaster over the next 30 years.
the Federalist Society which has been pivotal in putting excellent conservatives justices on the bench, promoted her strongly to Trump. I don't know what happened with ACB
She has voted with the right leaning judges a number of times and dissented on several others.
The key factor that gives me hope is that she is on record as rejecting the “living constitution” nonsense and adheres to the original intent doctrine. If this is true, she will become more conservative over time.
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.