Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson shows her independence in January 6 ruling
WaPo ^ | June 28, 2024 | Jason Willick

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 ...


TOPICS: Reference
KEYWORDS: scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 next last
To: CondoleezzaProtege

Over the years I had hoped that true scholars with actual experience like Scalia and Thomas would have an impact on Kagan and Sotomayor in how they viewed the constitution and application of the law. But really nothing changed as they are still reliable votes for the left. Sad.


21 posted on 06/29/2024 8:57:26 AM PDT by FLvoter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
One could argue in support of this position the article itselgf wherein it is stated 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.

Any halfwit 2nd year law student knows that you don't read a stautory provision out of the context of the rest of the statute unless you are a judge, appellate panel or prosecutor in the DC Circuit out to get Trump and his supporters.

I don't have any evidence against my thesis that ACB is squish, but she is not a half-wit.

22 posted on 06/29/2024 8:59:22 AM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: CondoleezzaProtege

Probably the blind squirrel syndrome but I’ll give her credit for being on the right side of this issue. I’m not optimistic that this will be a very frequent occurrence.


23 posted on 06/29/2024 9:02:19 AM PDT by CommerceComet (Re-elect Donald Trump - AGAIN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson

That was a good catch on your part.


24 posted on 06/29/2024 9:03:04 AM PDT by Lazamataz (joesbucks is back. Let's remedy that! 😁)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: CondoleezzaProtege

Maybe she’s being mentored by Clarence. People can change.


25 posted on 06/29/2024 9:07:09 AM PDT by Ge0ffrey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PGR88

Conservative women take the names of their husband. 2 last names was always a tell. The only issue relevant to conservatives for the last 40 years was Roe v Wade and if you were good on that you were good. Maybe now that this is over better justices can be chosen.


26 posted on 06/29/2024 9:07:45 AM PDT by wiseprince (Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: BobL

“...rather than gave any deep thought to what she was doing...”

“Deep thought” from this democrat idiot who doesn’t even know what a woman is?


27 posted on 06/29/2024 9:22:32 AM PDT by Bonemaker (invictus maneo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

I broke an heretofore inviolate rule of FR, never read the article you are commenting on.


28 posted on 06/29/2024 9:42:03 AM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: CondoleezzaProtege

Barrett is a strong textualist like Scalia, which means she interprets the words of the law as they are written, not how someone today might write the same idea, or what the framers motives or intentions were. That doesn’t mean she is always going to side with the conservative position (justices should never take political positions).

As an example, read Art. 2 Sect. Clause 3 and you will know what the constitution says about Electors. A textualist will base their decisions on these words, not what someone might wish they said, which means they would say Mike Pence, acting as President of the Senate, followed constitutional law and had no other option than to do what he did, no matter how much FReepers think otherwise.

You can have textualism or you can view the constitution as “a living document” that is subject to interpretation by modern-day readers. Pick one.


29 posted on 06/29/2024 10:03:40 AM PDT by bigbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Robert DeLong

And yet she voted with the conservatives to overturn Roe versus Wade , so there is that.


30 posted on 06/29/2024 10:08:07 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: traderrob6

Not getting how you think that.


31 posted on 06/29/2024 10:24:10 AM PDT by Fury (I )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009
hopefully she will “grow” into a swing vote the way many Republican judges have over the decades!

That's funny.

32 posted on 06/29/2024 10:25:48 AM PDT by libertylover (Our biggest problem, by far, is that almost all of big media is AGENDA-DRIVEN, not-truth driven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: CondoleezzaProtege

Driving...A disaster...
Voting...A disaster...
SCOTUS...A disaster...

At least from this 90-year old’s perspective...


33 posted on 06/29/2024 10:26:06 AM PDT by SuperLuminal ( Where is Samuel Adams when we so desperately need him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

She could do a lot more. Just sayin’.


34 posted on 06/29/2024 10:27:21 AM PDT by Robert DeLong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: MTBobcat

Okay, yes.

They need to be evaluated against the opinions she has signed onto that people believe are conservative opinions.

Like Bruen.

Dobbs.

Loper Bright Enterprises.


35 posted on 06/29/2024 10:28:57 AM PDT by Fury (I )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: CondoleezzaProtege

6-3. Her vote did not matter this time. She can show her independence someday when her vote makes a difference. Otherwise, she is just Joe Mannion, West Virginia 2.0.


36 posted on 06/29/2024 12:40:32 PM PDT by Freee-dame ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fury

It’s not important that you do.


37 posted on 06/29/2024 1:55:38 PM PDT by traderrob6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: traderrob6

LOL!


38 posted on 06/29/2024 3:15:07 PM PDT by Fury (I )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Fury

Amy Coney Barrett sides with government/business censorship in Missouri v Murtha (can you define/understand fascism?)

Still lovin’ on another “conservative” useless idjit?


39 posted on 06/29/2024 4:43:55 PM PDT by A strike (no tyranny that cannot be justified by 'climate change')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: traderrob6
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.

Roberts is an institutionalist. Not sure if ACB and Brown cares about the "integrity of the court".

40 posted on 06/29/2024 4:47:49 PM PDT by MinorityRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson