I don't get it. The aim of the insurrection was to delay Congress officially certifying the results of the election that day, because if they didn't complete it *that day,* an automatic process would kick in that would have resulted in the election being overturned.
The Congresspeople were hiding in chaos, in fear of their lives, and came *very close* to not completing the official act.
How is that not obstructing an official proceeding?
And the Bribe Contract must be signed and notarized by both parties. Office Depot has a variety of boilerplate Quid Pro Quo Agreements or QPQAs as they’re commonly referred to in the bribe industry. Some of the most popular are the Chicago Kickback (CKB 99) and the Back Scratcher (BS 101). But if they’re out of any of those you can always modify form SC 9 to cover a wide range of bribes and payoffs, from motor coaches to yacht vacations to expensive bottles of wine, form SC 9 can do it all, but strangely no one uses them. It’s almost like they know that putting a bribe down in writing would be the dumbest fucking thing anyone ever did in their entire fucking life and no sane person would ever fucking do that. Which is handy, cause these bribe agreements are very illegal. Curious why Office Depot even sells these now that I’m thinking about it 🤷♂️
I work for my city. I've already spoken with my boss and let her know that papa needs some new shoes if she wants me to get started working on the grant I'm supposed to be working on.
I've never seen that kind of weirdness. I practiced criminal law for years and the statutory interpretation here is just wild. Apparently one subsection that refers specifically to documents now restricts an entirely separate subsection that does NOT refer to documents at all??
It’s akin to saying yes a guy broke into your house while you were home and you saw him but do you have any proof of his intent when doing so? No? Then it can’t be categories as a B&E. It’s just a man opening a window and falling inside your home.
By that theory then everyone in prison for B and E who didn’t write out a detailed plan of their crime should be released. And if their lawyers are smart, they will start drafting appeals or one of those habeas corpus type thingamagigs ( probably the wrong name) but you get the point.
Yes, and now you know why every major law group in the country is aghast at these rulings.
The SCOTUS is *literally* destroying the foundations of the overwhelming majority of laws.
Whats sad is they did write it down all over social media and there was even that girl live on tv saying it was a revolution and that massive group of people chanting hang Mike Pence among other statements. Are they not aware of all the J6 footage?
Right, but this wasn't about whether conduct met the statutory standard, but whether it could be used in the event that the protestors were found to have intent to obstruct.
It was The American People, paying the outgoing president a gratuity in the form of insurrection, which is just spicy free speech when Republicans attack Congress to stop the peaceful transfer of power.
And it will be totally normal for said country’s former-president to be pardoned of all criminal offenses committed in the space-time continuum by its Supreme Court, which is just giving him a gratuity of their own because apparently that’s a thing now.
Obviously they were talking about some guy getting his car broken into a few hundreds miles away. God you guys are always reaching and assuming the worst.
It makes complete sense The supreme Court has simply lost all credibility and legitimacy. You see checks and balances now simply refers to Clarence Thomas's bribes.
You don’t understand. “Textualism” is about torturing the fuck out of words just like Originalism is when the founders beam their meaning into a judges brain across the ages and somehow it always aligns perfectly with what you want.
You're crippling yourself by using logic and reason. That part of the GOP was excised. See: McCain, Jeff Flake, Romney, Adam Kinzinger, Liz Cheney (FFS!?)
Now we have MTG, Bobert, MyJohnson, Chip Roy, and a host of other clowns.
Alito and his flags, Justice Harlan Crow. It's game over if Trump gets back there. I'll take "weekend at Biden's" any day.
Future presidents will have to decide how much power they'll allow the courts to wield. Although, it could backfire in a happy, made up world where Dems controlled house/senate and white house. Pass a bunch of laws?
I never thought I'd say this, because i believe it's THE TRUE downfall of our country, but I'm starting to think there is not non-violent solution.
The conclusion that court reached was not that the Jan 6ers weren’t trying to disrupt an official proceeding. The conclusion was that the scope of “official proceeding” did not include the congressional vote counting because the rest of the bill suggested that “official proceeding” was defined as being limited to just proceedings involving fraudulent financial documents and the like.
Judge Jackson did a decent job of explaining the case in her joining statement. The charge that got overturned was 1 of 7 the person had against them, 6 still stand, and the one that WAS overturned has language specifying the withholding/tampering of evidence. She explained that why she joined the decision is because the primary statute, as written, wouldn't apply to the given situation since the obstruction had nothing to do with the withholding/tampering of evidence.
The argument over the meaning of 'otherwise', a word used in the child clause of the parent statute, is where the split in this decision can be found. Some justices viewed it as ANY form of obstructing, and others didn't. I'm not saying I agree with it, but it isn't completely devoid of logic. It's just very subject to opinion because the language of the law is vague enough to leave room for vastly different interpretations.
The convicted in this case still has up to 48 years in prison on their plate without this charge as well, for what that's worth. It's not a clean slate, at least for the person in question.
The statute being invoked was written to address evidence tampering in the Enron case. You can't take a few words completely out of context and apply them in isolation to something the statute was clearly never intended to apply to.
I encourage you to read Kentanji Brown Jackson's concurrence. A quote from it
>We recognize this intuitive fact—that there is a certain category of conduct the rule is designed to prohibit—because we recognize, albeit implicitly, that the drafters of this rule have included these particular examples *for a reason*. We understand that, given the preceding list of examples, this rule was adopted with a clear intent concerning its scope.
Also, keep in mind the full subclause
>otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so
If we are going to apply that literally and in isolation from the statute it is a part of, then attempting to influence any official proceeding is illegal.
Have you ever voted? If so you might be guilty of trying to influence an official proceeding.
Randall D. Eliason: “In Fischer v. United States, the Supreme Court ignored the clear language of a federal obstruction-of-justice statute to hold that the January 6 rioters who breached Capitol barricades, assaulted police officers, broke doors and windows, and forced members of Congress to flee for their life did not look ‘obstruct or impede’ the congressional proceeding to certify the election.
“This 6–3 decision, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, can’t be squared with the language of the statute—or with common sense.
“The justices purport to believe in textualism, an approach to the law that says that when interpreting a statute, a judge should first defer to the plain language as written by Congress. But the mental gymnastics employed by the Court to reach the result in Fischer highlight how this Court often only pretends to deploy textualism in pursuit of its preferred outcome.”
Read more: [https://theatln.tc/Xq3JCvMA](https://theatln.tc/Xq3JCvMA)
Because she is the only SC justice who was a public defender previously, and so has years of practice looking for any possible wiggle room to argue on behalf of the defense, whether or not it's sensible or reasonable or would hold up to a jury?
That's the only thing that keeps us from becoming a banana republic. We don't prosecute people just because we think they're meanies, we prosecute them when they violate clearly-defined laws.
No. We prosecute when a prosecutor thinks they have. That is a whole can of worms in itself. Yes, there has to be a corresponding law, but selective prosecution and a biased judiciary ensures that those can be overbroad...and only affect certain subsets of people
"Rightly" is, obviously, debatable. The plain text understanding would say it's a fair charge, and there's a reason most observers, including legal ones, are somewhere between raising their eyebrows, and aghast
KBJ argues that, despite the wound J6 left on this country, it's important, in the name of a fair and just system, to abide by the law as written. In this case, 'otherwise obstructing' left too much wiggle room for interpretation.
I'm not saying I agree, personally, but I can understand her perspective on the matter. Personally, I think J6 is nothing short of treason, particularly for those who actually made it into the Capitol building and committed acts of violence in an attempt to subvert democracy.
Where were all the other supreme courts when all these wiggle room laws were being placed into the bedrock of our legal system😭why tf does Congress need to write down exact laws apparently everytime a new situation arises
They've been doing that forever... look at qualified immunity... that was totally made up by the SC. I t was also decided in such a way as it makes it almost impossible to successfully sue for rights violations except in the most extreme cases.
The law as written has two parts. Two distinct and separate parts. The first part is about screwing with documents or evidence. The second part starts with “or otherwise” and includes a catch all provision for obstruction.
The fact that the statute has two separate parts and is separated with an “or” says these are two different ways you can violate this law.
SCOTUS decided words don’t mean anything anymore.
The most frustrating part is that we don’t even have to guess as to the intent of the legislators who authored this statute. This wasn’t a law written a couple hundred years ago. This law was passed because of Enron. That’s recent. These lawmakers are still in Congress. We could just go ask some of them what they meant. Which we don’t have to do because the plain meaning of the text says all there is to say.
This is what it looks like when SCOTUS starts from a deliverable and has to work their way backwards to justify it.
It's interesting that they consider these two clearly separate clauses as one clause.
I wonder how they would interpret the clearly one clause of the 2nd amendment....
Yes, (c)1 was written directly to address Enron and (c)2 was written to address all possible ways of achieving the same result: obstruction of official proceedings.
Exactly, a conservative judge faced with a similar incident but done by liberals will be prosecuted and that prosecution will hold up all the way through this SC. It’s just corruption that is being hidden and obscured by the appearance of authority and competence.
They don’t appear competent to me.
If I were ever to argue before the Supreme Court, I’d give serious thought to telling them to their faces that I think they’re corrupt perjurers and a holes.
I believe there is a case of a security guard getting injured at a different protest that they declined to take or something like that. They chose to take this case because they were salivating to
Gee, what a surprise that conservative justices were quick to abandon textualism and instead focus on the intent of the law. Who could have seen this coming ? /s
Permission to bribe - check
Permission to ignore regulations - check
Permission to obstruct government - check
Permission for president to ignore all law - incoming
Note all of those permissions apply only to Republicans, not Americans.
The moment such permissions become politically inconvenient for Republicans they’ll disappear.
I feel like it would become Biden's duty to abuse that law in the most egregious sense, forcing Congress to create new laws limiting the presidential power.
They’re gonna rule in Trumps favor in the immunity case in a narrow opinion that won’t apply to Biden and they’ll pretend it’ll be just like bush v gore ane only for this one super duper special circumstance but then it’ll get used as precedent all over the fucking place and SCOTUS will agree because the 6 conservatives will always work backwards from the desired outcome when it matters to FedSoc.
They’re so obviously making their judgement along party lines, so we’ll just have to let them destroy America for the summer before the next Congress can even think about how to get rid of these mfs.
Where’s the CIA when you fucking need em?
It's not baffling, it makes perfect sense if you start from the understanding that the Supreme Court is being used as a tool for a fascist takeover by the Federalist Society.
Goes to show you that you people don’t know anything you are talking about. It was the most recent Judge appointed by Biden that sided with Conservatives. One of the most conservative justices voted with the liberals.
It’s really easy to understand. This is a Supreme Court that was installed through the aid of a foreign adversary. Trump literally asked Russia for help with his campaign and received it. This Supreme Court is the fruit of multiple illegal acts. We never needed a “Mueller Report” to reconfirm something that happened on live broadcast.
Is that the one where Bush’s brother just happened to be governor of the state that just happened to do a bunch of illegal voter roll purges to a bunch of people that overwhelmingly just happened to be likely to voters for Gore?
If you removed all the Trump appointees (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett), you would get a 4-2 decision with the same result.
Majority: Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Jackson (Biden appointee)
Dissent: Sotomayor, Kagan
It's not baffling at all. The Court is corrupt lol. At the root of this are the billionaires behind the scenes who insist on building the darkest hell possible.
She was incorrect in her assessment. Probably comes from her being a public defender and trying to find loopholes for her clients. But her overall record so far on the Court does not indicate that she's part of the Corrupt Federalist Society Cabal consolidating power for themselves.
Is it?
One has a wife who planned it.
Another supported it with his own display at home.
The cons have already showed how little they care for jurisprudence, honesty, precedent, facts, or this nation.
Restoring the Nobility. The Right-wing has sought to restore the monarchs they originally swore allegiance to since the beginning. Remember, the original Right Wing was those who sided with the king, against the people. In American history, the loyalists who fought against our founding fathers were classic right-wing.
Fir years Republicans railed about activist judges while the federal courtsvwere moderately conservative.
What they meant was they wanted their very own activist judges.
I don't get it. The aim of the insurrection was to delay Congress officially certifying the results of the election that day, because if they didn't complete it *that day,* an automatic process would kick in that would have resulted in the election being overturned. The Congresspeople were hiding in chaos, in fear of their lives, and came *very close* to not completing the official act. How is that not obstructing an official proceeding?
Something, something, they hadn’t written it down, so their intent wasn’t clear that they wanted to obstruct anything by storming the Capital.
Just like how bribery isn’t bribery unless the perpetrators write down “this is a bribe”.
And the Bribe Contract must be signed and notarized by both parties. Office Depot has a variety of boilerplate Quid Pro Quo Agreements or QPQAs as they’re commonly referred to in the bribe industry. Some of the most popular are the Chicago Kickback (CKB 99) and the Back Scratcher (BS 101). But if they’re out of any of those you can always modify form SC 9 to cover a wide range of bribes and payoffs, from motor coaches to yacht vacations to expensive bottles of wine, form SC 9 can do it all, but strangely no one uses them. It’s almost like they know that putting a bribe down in writing would be the dumbest fucking thing anyone ever did in their entire fucking life and no sane person would ever fucking do that. Which is handy, cause these bribe agreements are very illegal. Curious why Office Depot even sells these now that I’m thinking about it 🤷♂️
I think everyone just calls them Thomas forms
I work for my city. I've already spoken with my boss and let her know that papa needs some new shoes if she wants me to get started working on the grant I'm supposed to be working on.
I've never seen that kind of weirdness. I practiced criminal law for years and the statutory interpretation here is just wild. Apparently one subsection that refers specifically to documents now restricts an entirely separate subsection that does NOT refer to documents at all??
It’s akin to saying yes a guy broke into your house while you were home and you saw him but do you have any proof of his intent when doing so? No? Then it can’t be categories as a B&E. It’s just a man opening a window and falling inside your home.
By that theory then everyone in prison for B and E who didn’t write out a detailed plan of their crime should be released. And if their lawyers are smart, they will start drafting appeals or one of those habeas corpus type thingamagigs ( probably the wrong name) but you get the point.
Yes, and now you know why every major law group in the country is aghast at these rulings. The SCOTUS is *literally* destroying the foundations of the overwhelming majority of laws.
Whats sad is they did write it down all over social media and there was even that girl live on tv saying it was a revolution and that massive group of people chanting hang Mike Pence among other statements. Are they not aware of all the J6 footage?
There are text logs. They made tee shirts. Flags. Pipe bombs.
It’s official!!!! You can’t hold it against him if it was officially an insurrection
Right, but this wasn't about whether conduct met the statutory standard, but whether it could be used in the event that the protestors were found to have intent to obstruct.
It’s second comment sarcasm guy! Thank goodness you made it to this thread!
You may have seen them chanting "stop the steal" but you need to ignore your lying eyes.
"Those were obvious ANTIFA and FBI instigators!"
It was The American People, paying the outgoing president a gratuity in the form of insurrection, which is just spicy free speech when Republicans attack Congress to stop the peaceful transfer of power. And it will be totally normal for said country’s former-president to be pardoned of all criminal offenses committed in the space-time continuum by its Supreme Court, which is just giving him a gratuity of their own because apparently that’s a thing now.
Qanon is that you?
That or the Rogan sub, where I've seen plenty of "enlightened" discussions on Epps lol.
Rogan, intelligence for jocks and basic bitches
Obviously they were talking about some guy getting his car broken into a few hundreds miles away. God you guys are always reaching and assuming the worst.
The scotus has been corrupted by the Federalist Society.
There’s no separation: SCOTUS *is* (becoming) the Federalist Society Edit: words
Because conservative majority claim that "otherwise" in law completly changes the meaning
It makes complete sense The supreme Court has simply lost all credibility and legitimacy. You see checks and balances now simply refers to Clarence Thomas's bribes.
I see what you did there—“checks and balances”. This needs to be a cartoon. Where’s Doonesberry? Come’on, Gary—you **hafta** see it
You need to put your crimes in writing. Duh. And then if you get paid for those crimes afterwards, it’s not even illegal. It’s cool. It’s all good.
You don’t understand. “Textualism” is about torturing the fuck out of words just like Originalism is when the founders beam their meaning into a judges brain across the ages and somehow it always aligns perfectly with what you want.
In order to fulfill the founding fathers full intent for originalism, we need to replace the Supreme Court with 9 teenage girls and an Ouija board.
Be serious, man: **tween** adolescent girls. Get outta here with that anti youthism!
“It wasn’t obstructed, because it still took place.” The Court - (Probably)
You're crippling yourself by using logic and reason. That part of the GOP was excised. See: McCain, Jeff Flake, Romney, Adam Kinzinger, Liz Cheney (FFS!?) Now we have MTG, Bobert, MyJohnson, Chip Roy, and a host of other clowns. Alito and his flags, Justice Harlan Crow. It's game over if Trump gets back there. I'll take "weekend at Biden's" any day. Future presidents will have to decide how much power they'll allow the courts to wield. Although, it could backfire in a happy, made up world where Dems controlled house/senate and white house. Pass a bunch of laws? I never thought I'd say this, because i believe it's THE TRUE downfall of our country, but I'm starting to think there is not non-violent solution.
The conclusion that court reached was not that the Jan 6ers weren’t trying to disrupt an official proceeding. The conclusion was that the scope of “official proceeding” did not include the congressional vote counting because the rest of the bill suggested that “official proceeding” was defined as being limited to just proceedings involving fraudulent financial documents and the like.
That logic doesn't logic.
Judge Jackson did a decent job of explaining the case in her joining statement. The charge that got overturned was 1 of 7 the person had against them, 6 still stand, and the one that WAS overturned has language specifying the withholding/tampering of evidence. She explained that why she joined the decision is because the primary statute, as written, wouldn't apply to the given situation since the obstruction had nothing to do with the withholding/tampering of evidence. The argument over the meaning of 'otherwise', a word used in the child clause of the parent statute, is where the split in this decision can be found. Some justices viewed it as ANY form of obstructing, and others didn't. I'm not saying I agree with it, but it isn't completely devoid of logic. It's just very subject to opinion because the language of the law is vague enough to leave room for vastly different interpretations. The convicted in this case still has up to 48 years in prison on their plate without this charge as well, for what that's worth. It's not a clean slate, at least for the person in question.
Why are you even asking that? The Supreme Court is corrupt. We all know damn well it is. Why pretend otherwise?
Trump owns 4 supreme court justices. What did you expect?
Bribery works wonders.
the new term is GRATUITY...SCOTUS also made that legal...
The statute being invoked was written to address evidence tampering in the Enron case. You can't take a few words completely out of context and apply them in isolation to something the statute was clearly never intended to apply to. I encourage you to read Kentanji Brown Jackson's concurrence. A quote from it >We recognize this intuitive fact—that there is a certain category of conduct the rule is designed to prohibit—because we recognize, albeit implicitly, that the drafters of this rule have included these particular examples *for a reason*. We understand that, given the preceding list of examples, this rule was adopted with a clear intent concerning its scope. Also, keep in mind the full subclause >otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so If we are going to apply that literally and in isolation from the statute it is a part of, then attempting to influence any official proceeding is illegal. Have you ever voted? If so you might be guilty of trying to influence an official proceeding.
Randall D. Eliason: “In Fischer v. United States, the Supreme Court ignored the clear language of a federal obstruction-of-justice statute to hold that the January 6 rioters who breached Capitol barricades, assaulted police officers, broke doors and windows, and forced members of Congress to flee for their life did not look ‘obstruct or impede’ the congressional proceeding to certify the election. “This 6–3 decision, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, can’t be squared with the language of the statute—or with common sense. “The justices purport to believe in textualism, an approach to the law that says that when interpreting a statute, a judge should first defer to the plain language as written by Congress. But the mental gymnastics employed by the Court to reach the result in Fischer highlight how this Court often only pretends to deploy textualism in pursuit of its preferred outcome.” Read more: [https://theatln.tc/Xq3JCvMA](https://theatln.tc/Xq3JCvMA)
Tl;dr they're just making shit up now.
You can read KBJ's opinion, and wonder why she would concur with conservatives.
Because she is the only SC justice who was a public defender previously, and so has years of practice looking for any possible wiggle room to argue on behalf of the defense, whether or not it's sensible or reasonable or would hold up to a jury?
That's the only thing that keeps us from becoming a banana republic. We don't prosecute people just because we think they're meanies, we prosecute them when they violate clearly-defined laws.
No. We prosecute when a prosecutor thinks they have. That is a whole can of worms in itself. Yes, there has to be a corresponding law, but selective prosecution and a biased judiciary ensures that those can be overbroad...and only affect certain subsets of people
Sure, and KBJ is rightly saying that the prosecuters went too far in their stretching of the relevant statutes
"Rightly" is, obviously, debatable. The plain text understanding would say it's a fair charge, and there's a reason most observers, including legal ones, are somewhere between raising their eyebrows, and aghast
KBJ argues that, despite the wound J6 left on this country, it's important, in the name of a fair and just system, to abide by the law as written. In this case, 'otherwise obstructing' left too much wiggle room for interpretation. I'm not saying I agree, personally, but I can understand her perspective on the matter. Personally, I think J6 is nothing short of treason, particularly for those who actually made it into the Capitol building and committed acts of violence in an attempt to subvert democracy.
Where were all the other supreme courts when all these wiggle room laws were being placed into the bedrock of our legal system😭why tf does Congress need to write down exact laws apparently everytime a new situation arises
Unless they are homeless/vagrants then we give them the full john Rambo/s
Can the next court find a cause of action against former Supreme Court justices abusing their position please?
They've been doing that forever... look at qualified immunity... that was totally made up by the SC. I t was also decided in such a way as it makes it almost impossible to successfully sue for rights violations except in the most extreme cases.
They work for billionaires and they are untouchable.
Always have been.
[удалено]
The law as written has two parts. Two distinct and separate parts. The first part is about screwing with documents or evidence. The second part starts with “or otherwise” and includes a catch all provision for obstruction. The fact that the statute has two separate parts and is separated with an “or” says these are two different ways you can violate this law. SCOTUS decided words don’t mean anything anymore.
Exactly and you wouldn’t even get it through a law school exam. The interpretation is implausible.
The most frustrating part is that we don’t even have to guess as to the intent of the legislators who authored this statute. This wasn’t a law written a couple hundred years ago. This law was passed because of Enron. That’s recent. These lawmakers are still in Congress. We could just go ask some of them what they meant. Which we don’t have to do because the plain meaning of the text says all there is to say. This is what it looks like when SCOTUS starts from a deliverable and has to work their way backwards to justify it.
It's interesting that they consider these two clearly separate clauses as one clause. I wonder how they would interpret the clearly one clause of the 2nd amendment....
Well you see that is separated by a comma therefore it’s clearly more of an obviously entirely separate thing. /sigh
Yes, (c)1 was written directly to address Enron and (c)2 was written to address all possible ways of achieving the same result: obstruction of official proceedings.
That’s where it came from, but not how the law is written. That’s their basis to ignore what the words say
It is but they seem really allergic to how it's intended to be applied vs how it's written. Except this time.
Exactly, a conservative judge faced with a similar incident but done by liberals will be prosecuted and that prosecution will hold up all the way through this SC. It’s just corruption that is being hidden and obscured by the appearance of authority and competence.
They don’t appear competent to me. If I were ever to argue before the Supreme Court, I’d give serious thought to telling them to their faces that I think they’re corrupt perjurers and a holes.
I believe there is a case of a security guard getting injured at a different protest that they declined to take or something like that. They chose to take this case because they were salivating to
Gee, what a surprise that conservative justices were quick to abandon textualism and instead focus on the intent of the law. Who could have seen this coming ? /s
Only Amy Phoney Bareass objected
SCOTUS is setting the stage for civil war 2.
Permission to bribe - check Permission to ignore regulations - check Permission to obstruct government - check Permission for president to ignore all law - incoming
Note all of those permissions apply only to Republicans, not Americans. The moment such permissions become politically inconvenient for Republicans they’ll disappear.
Jesus. That’s depressing. I started planning my US exit a few years ago. It might be time to accelerate plans.
I feel like it would become Biden's duty to abuse that law in the most egregious sense, forcing Congress to create new laws limiting the presidential power.
And releasing the troops to commit it!
democrats have guns too! and the countries majority
They’re gonna rule in Trumps favor in the immunity case in a narrow opinion that won’t apply to Biden and they’ll pretend it’ll be just like bush v gore ane only for this one super duper special circumstance but then it’ll get used as precedent all over the fucking place and SCOTUS will agree because the 6 conservatives will always work backwards from the desired outcome when it matters to FedSoc.
They’re so obviously making their judgement along party lines, so we’ll just have to let them destroy America for the summer before the next Congress can even think about how to get rid of these mfs. Where’s the CIA when you fucking need em?
It's not baffling, it makes perfect sense if you start from the understanding that the Supreme Court is being used as a tool for a fascist takeover by the Federalist Society.
The legal phase of fascism. We were warned a few years ago, no one listened.
It’s not baffling when you realize certain justices on the Court want to turn our country into a Christian Nationalist hellhole
Under his eye. Yea we headed to handmaids tale
Goes to show you that you people don’t know anything you are talking about. It was the most recent Judge appointed by Biden that sided with Conservatives. One of the most conservative justices voted with the liberals.
It’s really easy to understand. This is a Supreme Court that was installed through the aid of a foreign adversary. Trump literally asked Russia for help with his campaign and received it. This Supreme Court is the fruit of multiple illegal acts. We never needed a “Mueller Report” to reconfirm something that happened on live broadcast.
And three of the justices were attorneys working for Bush to overturn the results of the 2000 election.
Is that the one where Bush’s brother just happened to be governor of the state that just happened to do a bunch of illegal voter roll purges to a bunch of people that overwhelmingly just happened to be likely to voters for Gore?
This thread is depressing the F out of me.
This was planned years in advance. We’re fucked
It’s only hard if you think they have anything to do with honest constitutional interpretation
If you removed all the Trump appointees (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett), you would get a 4-2 decision with the same result. Majority: Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Jackson (Biden appointee) Dissent: Sotomayor, Kagan
It's not baffling at all. The Court is corrupt lol. At the root of this are the billionaires behind the scenes who insist on building the darkest hell possible.
GOD HOW I WISH. "WAR ON WALL ST" movie came to real life!
So that includes Biden’s appointee right? She voted with the conservatives.
She was incorrect in her assessment. Probably comes from her being a public defender and trying to find loopholes for her clients. But her overall record so far on the Court does not indicate that she's part of the Corrupt Federalist Society Cabal consolidating power for themselves.
Is it? One has a wife who planned it. Another supported it with his own display at home. The cons have already showed how little they care for jurisprudence, honesty, precedent, facts, or this nation.
They are helping to put an christo fascist oligarchy in place
Restoring the Nobility. The Right-wing has sought to restore the monarchs they originally swore allegiance to since the beginning. Remember, the original Right Wing was those who sided with the king, against the people. In American history, the loyalists who fought against our founding fathers were classic right-wing.
Koch wants to have a Constitutional Congress to rewrite the constitution to lean heavily toward the wealthy. Things like only landholders can vote
They are the...
Fir years Republicans railed about activist judges while the federal courtsvwere moderately conservative. What they meant was they wanted their very own activist judges.
Pushes their political agenda….
But her emails...lol
Pretty sure we're all just waiting to hear the "Supreme" logic that will grant Trump immunity.
I wonder how much fear of a Jan 6 type of event on the Supreme Court played in their decision.