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 ...
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.
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.
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.
That was a good catch on your part.
Maybe she’s being mentored by Clarence. People can change.
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.
“...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?
I broke an heretofore inviolate rule of FR, never read the article you are commenting on.
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.
And yet she voted with the conservatives to overturn Roe versus Wade , so there is that.
Not getting how you think that.
That's funny.
Driving...A disaster...
Voting...A disaster...
SCOTUS...A disaster...
At least from this 90-year old’s perspective...
She could do a lot more. Just sayin’.
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.
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.
It’s not important that you do.
LOL!
Amy Coney Barrett sides with government/business censorship in Missouri v Murtha (can you define/understand fascism?)
Still lovin’ on another “conservative” useless idjit?
Roberts is an institutionalist. Not sure if ACB and Brown cares about the "integrity of the court".
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.