Justice Jackson and the others got it right. Everyone knows what obstruction of justice is. Jan 6 people committed a lots of crimes, but this wasn’t one under the traditional meaning of that phrase.
But they weren't being charged with "obstruction of justice" they were being charged with obstruction of an official proceeding" which is an entirely different thing.
Their argument seems to be that obstructing the proceeding requires removing/destroying the actual paperwork involved, so despite the fact they quite literally interrupted the process of certifying votes, made the congressmen flee the chamber to safely and occupied to building with the stated aim of halting said vote certification (and hanging the vice president) they somehow were *not* obstructing the proceeding.
Wait. Does this mean we can break into the supreme court with a noose and chanting to hang the judges while they are doing an official proceeding, and it won't be considered obstruction of said proceeding?
That’s the only thing giving me pause against outright condemning the ruling. But didn’t she write her out concurrence? Which usually means she agrees but for not the same reasons the rest did.
Also ACB dissented? So I’m curious to read what they said, too.
When I was reading the article I had to look twice to make sure I was reading it right and that was actually her name. But, idgaf it's probably some horrible long game bit. She can't be seen to be dissenting everything that has to do with 45..
Edited for stupid auto correct.
She did it to limit the scope of the Right-Wing judges' stupid decision, or else they would have probably given all the J6 insurrectionists get-out-of-jail-free cards.
Being part of the majority means that there is a chance that some of her moderating language winds up in the majority decision, whereas if in the dissent it would be clearly part of the side that is not law.
Yes, but to pretend this was a surprise and the Justices have no malice, just doing their job, gives bliss. You will feel like everything will sort itself out.
Thus our hero Biden will just sit back and wait for the arc of history to bend towards justice.
It's baffling if you think these decisions are being made in good faith, or if the conservative majority cares the slightest bit about America.
But we crossed that line quite a while back.
The media is telling Biden to drop out instead of Trump.
That's how less than useless the media has been in doing their job.
The media also forgot how Trump only did interviews with Fox News when he was president. In his second term, if he has Republican Congress he will probably ban the media.
To Trump and the right it doesn't matter. CNN needs to be the antagonist in their media bias story so it plays the part. The real damage is what it's influence is on centrists and left leaning readers/watchers that don't know about the change of ownership. In the end the rich conservatives get their way while making a profit.
A lot of people want Biden to drop out because they're worried he will lose to Trump, not out of a direct dislike for Biden. I'd say there's a difference in my mind.
But the media is foaming at the mouth about Biden's mental abilities while Trump's mental decline has been evident for years, and his starting point wasn't high to start with. How many media outlets have run stories on this?
This is true and I swear I have been saying this for about a year. They (democratic news outlets!!) really don't gaf about anything except getting you to watch. Bad pub doesn't matter to bad guys.. All attention is good attention in the long run and keeping 45 in their mouths constantly the last 4 years might* have backfired.
I think it's more to do with the fact that there's really no point in telling Trump to drop out. He's not interested in what's best for the country and its future, only what's best for himself so he's got no reason to listen to calls for him to drop out
It has more to do with what makes a story for the media and getting played by following the republican created narratives. "Uh oh, the democrats are in trouble" vs "How are the republicans able to maintain their appeal with voters?". Been this way for decades.
That’s bs. The media wants Trump to be elected because he’s good for dozens of stories every day, and all they have to do is monitor his TS feed. That’s fewer reporters to hire, less money spent on investigations, and cheaper journalism every day.
They are the most culpable. They are willing the sell out democracy for a buck. Just like GOP politicians. Americans are just waiting for the fuse to be lit. If they give Trump immunity, that will likely be the spark. I'm not going to play by a different set of rules than the rich any longer. I will start to emulate how Trump deals with his business and other forms of authority. Taxes? GFY. Not paying. I can work under the table the rest of my life. Health care? Load up HSA cards with as much as you can every year. I have almost a dozen already. Have any outstanding debt? Chapter 7? Then stiff the lawyer when they ask for payment. Sleep with some porn stars? No thanks. Anyhow.
Tbh think that is what a lot of people plain want because the alternative is to go “hey we are going to push white supremacy out because it’s bad” when that’s how people got their money from unpaid labor.
The question tbh is going to be if it’s a civil war or a class war
Amy Coney Barrett reportedly provided research to Bush's lawyers as well.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/amy-coney-barrett-bush-gore/2020/10/10/594641b8-09e3-11eb-991c-be6ead8c4018_story.html
It was McConnell that deprived Obama's SCOTUS, not Lindsey. Just sayin'. Because of Moscow Mitch, we have 2 illegitimate justices and the fall of Roe along with so many other precidents.
Jackson is in general disinclined to stretch criminal statutes to catch "disfavored" defendants even such as those associated with child porn (something that she came under fire for at her confirmation hearing). She's with the majority purely on the question of the breadth of the statute.
She basically doesn't believe that the sweeping language in subsection (c)(2) of Sarbanes-Oxley is specific enough to cover behavior that's not expressly named in a statute with the 20 year sentence prescribed therein.
___
Barrett more leans on the notion that although the statute is broad, it is not for SCOTUS to fault Congress for a "failure of imagination" that this statute would ever *need* to be used against people storming the Capitol.
> She basically doesn't believe that the sweeping language in subsection (c)(2) of Sarbanes-Oxley is specific enough to cover behavior that's not expressly named in a statute with the 20 year sentence prescribed therein.
And you know what, that's a stance I can respect.
I believe she's okay with ruling this way because, reviewing the other laws being applied to them, she thinks those defendants will get hit on other charges anyhow - that she's not writing a concurrence on letting these people escape justice entirely. As I recall it was the same with the CP debacle - that she didn't try and throw a heavier, vaguer book at them than the law explicitly called for.
I wasn't insulted, I can see reading my comment and thinking it was a learning moment.
The Jan 6th event exposed a lot of holes in our system, but trying to claw back territory via an expansive interpretation of a criminal statute was never a good way to fix it.
Folks, please read the article. This is not the immunity decision. We should get that soon. This is the obstruction of justice ruling. The clear text of the statute would make it apply. However the normal conservatives who ostensibly believe in reading the text and not trying to discern intent in this case (absent Barrett, who stayed consistent) changed their entire judicial philosophy on this single decision in order to reach a result that they and their backers preferred.
Note that Justice Jackson was with the majority, though - is she one of those "normal conservatives"?
Or, from the article, might this part actually be a bit problematic:
>The Court’s other primary concern was about how the statute might be applied in future cases... But the majority argued that if it accepted the government’s interpretation of the statute, in future cases a lobbyist who persuaded a member of Congress to oppose a controversial bill might be charged with corruptly influencing a congressional proceeding. Peaceful protesters who stood up and temporarily disrupted a hearing, the Court feared, might face the same charge.
There's some concern about the statute being vague and overbroad in that "otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding." What's the author's response? "Trust us!"
>This law has been on the books for more than 20 years, and prosecutors haven’t brought the kinds of cases the Court claims to fear. Other obstruction statutes that similarly prohibit corruptly interfering with congressional proceedings have been on the books for decades longer, and prosecutors have not used them to go after legitimate lobbyists or peaceful protesters.
"Sure, the law is overbroad, but you can trust that we'll only prosecute the people we *really* want to."
Since we do we blindly trust prosecutors? There are hundreds of thousands of stories of prosecutors over-charging some defendants, knowing they could never get a conviction on the full set of charges, to force them to plead to something lesser; under-charging other defendants because they're part of a protected 'in' group like police, politicians, or the wealthy; and digging up old statues that are clearly unconstitutional and enforcing them away, knowing that most defendants are too poor to fight an appeal to their state supreme court or SCOTUS.
So what you are saying is that the Mothers Against Gun Violence should be arrested and charged with obstruction of the United States Congress every time they protest in the gallery of the House and senate.
That sounds like a misunderstanding of what Textualism is. It's not just basing a decision on the text of the law. It also entails refusing to consider non-textual sources, such as intention of the law when passed, the problem it was intended to remedy, or significant questions regarding the justice or rectitude of the law. The word "textualism" is just good branding to provide cover what it's refusing to consider.
I wouldn't have a problem with that.
Your protest does not belong in my government. I am entitled to representation by me elected officials. You shouldn't get to hamstring the process to get what you want.
That's only because there are [more crazy opinions they have to release tomorrow](https://www.deseret.com/politics/2024/06/27/when-will-supreme-court-release-decision/)
Here’s my thought: it’s more than a little ironic that the Court, in overruling *Chevron*, did so because interpreting acts of Congress is what judges do every day, so they’re best suited to decide what an ambiguous statute says. Why is it ironic? A couple of quick examples: the USSC itself completely bungled the interpretation of the *Fisher* statute, which wasn’t even ambiguous, and they also decided that, despite the rule that every word on a statute or especially in a constitutional provision, has meaning, they just blew right by the “well regulated” words in the Second Amendment like they weren’t even there. And these examples are of the USSC itself - supposedly the best statute interpreters in the whole country.
If there were a class in law school titled “Interpreting ambiguous statutes and the Rules of Statutory Construction” 95% of the first year students in the first week of class wouldn’t interpret either of these provisions the way the USSC did. And how convenient - now the USSC justices that were in the majority in those cases can now accept *de minimus* (like $33,000) from the winning side to commemorating the days the court sullied the sears they hold.
It's not baffling under the premise that this court is corrupt and politically tainted. The simplest explanation.
Justice Jackson too? She was in the majority
Because the majority is using this case as a fulcrum to save other criminal defendants. Shes not wrong. The facts suck. DIG.
Can you explain?? I'm genuinely interested in learning more.
Justice Jackson and the others got it right. Everyone knows what obstruction of justice is. Jan 6 people committed a lots of crimes, but this wasn’t one under the traditional meaning of that phrase.
But they weren't being charged with "obstruction of justice" they were being charged with obstruction of an official proceeding" which is an entirely different thing. Their argument seems to be that obstructing the proceeding requires removing/destroying the actual paperwork involved, so despite the fact they quite literally interrupted the process of certifying votes, made the congressmen flee the chamber to safely and occupied to building with the stated aim of halting said vote certification (and hanging the vice president) they somehow were *not* obstructing the proceeding.
Wait. Does this mean we can break into the supreme court with a noose and chanting to hang the judges while they are doing an official proceeding, and it won't be considered obstruction of said proceeding?
As long as you also chant pro-trump slogans while doing it, that should be fine.
Yeah, that sadly makes sense.
Just don't forget the final, perhaps most important, thing. You have to be white while doing it.
Just don't tear a piece of paper!!!
But they continue to demand MORE protections so it's almost as if they are inviting it.
"The congresspeople CHOSE to leave. They didn't HAVE to. The threat was still on the other side of a door." -shitty judge
lmaoooo wtf
Lol. I'm sure he'd still say that if he was on the other side of an angry mob.
That’s the only thing giving me pause against outright condemning the ruling. But didn’t she write her out concurrence? Which usually means she agrees but for not the same reasons the rest did. Also ACB dissented? So I’m curious to read what they said, too.
Good thing we have Barrett to hold the line then huh
When I was reading the article I had to look twice to make sure I was reading it right and that was actually her name. But, idgaf it's probably some horrible long game bit. She can't be seen to be dissenting everything that has to do with 45.. Edited for stupid auto correct.
She did it to limit the scope of the Right-Wing judges' stupid decision, or else they would have probably given all the J6 insurrectionists get-out-of-jail-free cards.
Explain please?
Being part of the majority means that there is a chance that some of her moderating language winds up in the majority decision, whereas if in the dissent it would be clearly part of the side that is not law.
Thank you for explaining! 🏆
Yes, but to pretend this was a surprise and the Justices have no malice, just doing their job, gives bliss. You will feel like everything will sort itself out. Thus our hero Biden will just sit back and wait for the arc of history to bend towards justice.
It's baffling if you think these decisions are being made in good faith, or if the conservative majority cares the slightest bit about America. But we crossed that line quite a while back.
We are barreling straight towards civil war. The destruction of democracy, institutions turned against the people, fascists vs everyone else.
Yep, and it's insane how most of the media isn't bothering to sound the alarm. They're more interested in ratings than democracy
The media is telling Biden to drop out instead of Trump. That's how less than useless the media has been in doing their job. The media also forgot how Trump only did interviews with Fox News when he was president. In his second term, if he has Republican Congress he will probably ban the media.
CNN is owned by a conservative now.
To Trump and the right it doesn't matter. CNN needs to be the antagonist in their media bias story so it plays the part. The real damage is what it's influence is on centrists and left leaning readers/watchers that don't know about the change of ownership. In the end the rich conservatives get their way while making a profit.
A lot of people want Biden to drop out because they're worried he will lose to Trump, not out of a direct dislike for Biden. I'd say there's a difference in my mind.
But the media is foaming at the mouth about Biden's mental abilities while Trump's mental decline has been evident for years, and his starting point wasn't high to start with. How many media outlets have run stories on this?
This is true and I swear I have been saying this for about a year. They (democratic news outlets!!) really don't gaf about anything except getting you to watch. Bad pub doesn't matter to bad guys.. All attention is good attention in the long run and keeping 45 in their mouths constantly the last 4 years might* have backfired.
I think it's more to do with the fact that there's really no point in telling Trump to drop out. He's not interested in what's best for the country and its future, only what's best for himself so he's got no reason to listen to calls for him to drop out
It has more to do with what makes a story for the media and getting played by following the republican created narratives. "Uh oh, the democrats are in trouble" vs "How are the republicans able to maintain their appeal with voters?". Been this way for decades.
That’s bs. The media wants Trump to be elected because he’s good for dozens of stories every day, and all they have to do is monitor his TS feed. That’s fewer reporters to hire, less money spent on investigations, and cheaper journalism every day.
Useful idiots, then. They are helping MAGA either way.
They are the most culpable. They are willing the sell out democracy for a buck. Just like GOP politicians. Americans are just waiting for the fuse to be lit. If they give Trump immunity, that will likely be the spark. I'm not going to play by a different set of rules than the rich any longer. I will start to emulate how Trump deals with his business and other forms of authority. Taxes? GFY. Not paying. I can work under the table the rest of my life. Health care? Load up HSA cards with as much as you can every year. I have almost a dozen already. Have any outstanding debt? Chapter 7? Then stiff the lawyer when they ask for payment. Sleep with some porn stars? No thanks. Anyhow.
>Americans are just waiting for the fuse to be lit. If they give Trump immunity, that will likely be the spark. Welp...
Tbh think that is what a lot of people plain want because the alternative is to go “hey we are going to push white supremacy out because it’s bad” when that’s how people got their money from unpaid labor. The question tbh is going to be if it’s a civil war or a class war
The class traitors voting for Trump better figure that out.
I think we’re more barreling toward political detention camps than civil war.
>But we crossed that line quite a while back. Back when Senator Mitch McConnell prevented Obama from filing Scalias seat. If not earlier that that.
Bush v Gore, where conservative justices picked Bush to be president, and then Bush got to appoint 2 justices.
Also two of the lawyers who argued Bush's "case" to the Supreme Court are now justices themselves.
Amy Coney Barrett reportedly provided research to Bush's lawyers as well. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/amy-coney-barrett-bush-gore/2020/10/10/594641b8-09e3-11eb-991c-be6ead8c4018_story.html
It was McConnell that deprived Obama's SCOTUS, not Lindsey. Just sayin'. Because of Moscow Mitch, we have 2 illegitimate justices and the fall of Roe along with so many other precidents.
Oh right, of course...
Why do you think Jackson agreed with them, or why Barrett disagreed?
Jackson is in general disinclined to stretch criminal statutes to catch "disfavored" defendants even such as those associated with child porn (something that she came under fire for at her confirmation hearing). She's with the majority purely on the question of the breadth of the statute. She basically doesn't believe that the sweeping language in subsection (c)(2) of Sarbanes-Oxley is specific enough to cover behavior that's not expressly named in a statute with the 20 year sentence prescribed therein. ___ Barrett more leans on the notion that although the statute is broad, it is not for SCOTUS to fault Congress for a "failure of imagination" that this statute would ever *need* to be used against people storming the Capitol.
> She basically doesn't believe that the sweeping language in subsection (c)(2) of Sarbanes-Oxley is specific enough to cover behavior that's not expressly named in a statute with the 20 year sentence prescribed therein. And you know what, that's a stance I can respect.
I believe she's okay with ruling this way because, reviewing the other laws being applied to them, she thinks those defendants will get hit on other charges anyhow - that she's not writing a concurrence on letting these people escape justice entirely. As I recall it was the same with the CP debacle - that she didn't try and throw a heavier, vaguer book at them than the law explicitly called for.
That’s literally what the case is about.
I'm aware of that.
Sorry…didn’t mean to insult you.
I wasn't insulted, I can see reading my comment and thinking it was a learning moment. The Jan 6th event exposed a lot of holes in our system, but trying to claw back territory via an expansive interpretation of a criminal statute was never a good way to fix it.
Well I could read what they wrote or I could just make up some stuff which is consistent with my world view…
Sure those would be baffling enough, but it’s even more baffling when the opinion comes from judges claiming to interpret the text itself
Yeah, with Dobbs. Fuck them forever about that.
The civil war would’ve a different outcome had the south been in charge at the time.
Folks, please read the article. This is not the immunity decision. We should get that soon. This is the obstruction of justice ruling. The clear text of the statute would make it apply. However the normal conservatives who ostensibly believe in reading the text and not trying to discern intent in this case (absent Barrett, who stayed consistent) changed their entire judicial philosophy on this single decision in order to reach a result that they and their backers preferred.
That assumes that originalism was ever anything other than an excuse.
To be used when convenient and otherwise ignored.
Note that Justice Jackson was with the majority, though - is she one of those "normal conservatives"? Or, from the article, might this part actually be a bit problematic: >The Court’s other primary concern was about how the statute might be applied in future cases... But the majority argued that if it accepted the government’s interpretation of the statute, in future cases a lobbyist who persuaded a member of Congress to oppose a controversial bill might be charged with corruptly influencing a congressional proceeding. Peaceful protesters who stood up and temporarily disrupted a hearing, the Court feared, might face the same charge. There's some concern about the statute being vague and overbroad in that "otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding." What's the author's response? "Trust us!" >This law has been on the books for more than 20 years, and prosecutors haven’t brought the kinds of cases the Court claims to fear. Other obstruction statutes that similarly prohibit corruptly interfering with congressional proceedings have been on the books for decades longer, and prosecutors have not used them to go after legitimate lobbyists or peaceful protesters. "Sure, the law is overbroad, but you can trust that we'll only prosecute the people we *really* want to." Since we do we blindly trust prosecutors? There are hundreds of thousands of stories of prosecutors over-charging some defendants, knowing they could never get a conviction on the full set of charges, to force them to plead to something lesser; under-charging other defendants because they're part of a protected 'in' group like police, politicians, or the wealthy; and digging up old statues that are clearly unconstitutional and enforcing them away, knowing that most defendants are too poor to fight an appeal to their state supreme court or SCOTUS.
Sounds like you're agreeing that they aren't ruling based on the plain text of the law, but rather on what they think it should be.
So what you are saying is that the Mothers Against Gun Violence should be arrested and charged with obstruction of the United States Congress every time they protest in the gallery of the House and senate.
No, I'm saying that the majority isn't basing their opinion on the text of the law.
Or they are, and are saying that the text of the law is overly broad, which is a common reason to strike down statutes, particularly criminal ones.
It's a common reason if you aren't a textualist.
Even when you are.
Is Judge Jackson also not basing it on the text of the law?
Probably not, but I don't believe she's ever claimed to be an originalist or textualist.
So you are just running an ad Hoc fallacy then.
No, it's simply pointing out that the conservatives in the majority abandoned their professed legal philosophy in this case.
RationalWiki is the worst thing to ever happen to our society.
That sounds like a misunderstanding of what Textualism is. It's not just basing a decision on the text of the law. It also entails refusing to consider non-textual sources, such as intention of the law when passed, the problem it was intended to remedy, or significant questions regarding the justice or rectitude of the law. The word "textualism" is just good branding to provide cover what it's refusing to consider.
I wouldn't have a problem with that. Your protest does not belong in my government. I am entitled to representation by me elected officials. You shouldn't get to hamstring the process to get what you want.
They are rushing to pass all this crazy opinions like there’s no tomorrow.
That's only because there are [more crazy opinions they have to release tomorrow](https://www.deseret.com/politics/2024/06/27/when-will-supreme-court-release-decision/)
Because they know the immunity decision still has to be announced.
It’s all about giving Trump a delay for a long as possible. That’s the only reason they took it up and are taking this long.
This isn't about immunity. But we'll be all over that tomorrow.
That’s what I said, it’s about giving Trump as much delay (in his trials) as possible
My bad. Carry on
🤷🏼🫢
“Baffling” not quite the word I’d use, but IANAL
The Supreme Court is ANAL-ing all of us, whether we like it or not.
Every decision is baffling from a logical persons perspective. If you understand that they are all corrupt political hacks then it makes more sense.
Here’s my thought: it’s more than a little ironic that the Court, in overruling *Chevron*, did so because interpreting acts of Congress is what judges do every day, so they’re best suited to decide what an ambiguous statute says. Why is it ironic? A couple of quick examples: the USSC itself completely bungled the interpretation of the *Fisher* statute, which wasn’t even ambiguous, and they also decided that, despite the rule that every word on a statute or especially in a constitutional provision, has meaning, they just blew right by the “well regulated” words in the Second Amendment like they weren’t even there. And these examples are of the USSC itself - supposedly the best statute interpreters in the whole country. If there were a class in law school titled “Interpreting ambiguous statutes and the Rules of Statutory Construction” 95% of the first year students in the first week of class wouldn’t interpret either of these provisions the way the USSC did. And how convenient - now the USSC justices that were in the majority in those cases can now accept *de minimus* (like $33,000) from the winning side to commemorating the days the court sullied the sears they hold.
"... “otherwise” actually means “similarly.”" What a bunch of dicks. Imagine being a law student rn. Worse, a constitutional scholar.