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 ...
Which makes my assertion simply speculation rather than fact.
It’s possible.
Murthy
Nope. I look at a number of opinions she was signed onto or authored.
Which seems to be a rarity for posters.
BLACKBURN: "Can you provide a definition for the word 'woman'?"JACKSON: “Can I provide a definition? No. I can’t.”
BLACKBURN: "You can't?"
JACKSON: "Not in this context. I'm not a biologist."
I took that answer to mean biology determines whether a person is a man or a woman.
I get that Republicans just wanted a gotcha, but there are some rare conditions where outward appearance and chromosomes don't seem to match.
You asked : “Cite SPECIFICALLY in an opinion she signed on to ...”
which was answered and which your response has nothing whatsoever to do with.
My response was referring to the ignorant comment of:
“Still lovin’ on another “conservative” useless idjit?”
I look at her totality of USSC work.
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.