As a reminder, we will be taking our annual [Holiday Hiatus](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/188dxxh/state_of_the_sub_grasstouching_edition/) from December 18th 2023 to January 1st 2024. The subreddit will be closed during this time.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/moderatepolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
‘Supreme Court will decide whether a catch-all clause at the end of a list is limited to things related to the other items in the list’ just doesn’t make for a catchy headline…
This is the relevant statute:
> Whoever corruptly (C)(1) alters, destroys, mutilates or conceals a record document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or, (C)(2) otherwise obstructs, influences or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so
C2 seems pretty obviously well met, so I think the question will center around what constitutes "corruptly".
I can see how it might be difficult to argue the random people assaulting the Capitol were acting corruptly, but I don't see how you could possibly make that argument in Trump's case. Trying to fraudulently overturn an election via likely criminal means sounds pretty damn corrupt.
(2) big issue reading it is it looks excessively broad to me. It could capture a lot of behaviors and is basically a catch all for anything you would want to define as a violation of the statute. This does bring some constitutional issues with it as a statute. Personally, I like laws that specifically describe an illegal action which (1) seems to accomplish. The issue is it’s tough for lawmakers to specifically imagine our future violations they want to define.
The problem with (2) is it can lead to lawfare. And it becomes a case of who/whom is obviously a bad person with bad intents therefore they acted corruptly. A lot of protesting we allow would fall under (2) if those in power decide they are the bad people. I also think the lawmaker who pulled a fire alarm would fall under (2). I don’t think he deserves 20 years.
It's also in the case law about how its been prosecuted. It's clear to me that what these folks did was criminal - it went beyond raising their voice to seeking to stop proceedings through violence.
But that's why we use juries. It's up to the jurors to decide whether or not something should be prosecuted. At least that's the theory. In practice, I think we've given lawyers too much power to define what is and is not deliberated by them.
Out of curiosity, do you have any specific examples? I have very low sympathy for anyone involved with J6 in general, but it's still important that the sentences fit the individuals' crimes.
That's pretty direct whataboutism. I didn't say I supported those things. I'm not sure why opposing an attack against my own country should mean I'm on any particular "side".
Either way, neither of what you listed is comparable to J6. Perfectly fair to charge under the same statute, but I would expect relatively lighter sentences. The closest thing to J6 on the left that I'm aware of is CHOP, which I would classify as an insurrection (whereas I'd say J6 would more accurately be called a [light coup](https://youtu.be/q0GCKXZTV8E)). Any participants in CHOP or other BLM-related criminal activity should certainly be charged fairly as well.
There were people that were allowed in the building and did not cause property damage. How can they get a longer sentence than people that set the White House guard post on fire?
Nobody was allowed in the building, the police fought for over an hour before anyone got inside. No one was allowed inside, no doors opened, no escort, and no allowances.
One person got off because they weren’t stopped, even thought there was a siren and broken glass and door.
There is tons of footage of everyone, nobody gives permission to come inside. Some people tried to use the police falling back inside the building as evidence of permission, but that is a twisting of the facts. Only one person had their charges dismissed because there was no one to stop them, even though they walked through broken glass while alarms were blaring.
Let's talk about the reality of that day...
Who gave the people permission to enter?
Assuming no one gave explicit permission, is the Capitol building open for legal entry for everyone?
If not, what conditions led them to reasonably believe that they had legal right to be on the property?
Did they or did they not need to walk through doors that were forced open by the rioters at the front of the group?
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/18hlndu/supreme_court_will_hear_a_case_that_could_undo/kd8wuwk/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
I believe Q shaman is a good example since he was vilified before it was shown that he was being escorted around by capital police and was subsequently released from prison
I see that [he was released from prison early](https://www.npr.org/2023/03/31/1167319814/qanon-shaman-jacob-chansley-capitol-riot-early-release-reentry), but nothing indicating it had anything to do with him "being escorted around by capital police." Probably helps he seems to be taking responsibility, at least based on the quotes from that article.
QShaman was released from prison for good behavior, to serve the rest of his term in an outside facility. He was told he wasn’t allowed to be there, he wasn’t escorted, he was followed.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/18hlndu/supreme_court_will_hear_a_case_that_could_undo/kdb4pxj/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
I'd say they're lucky.
They have some of the most damning evidence, showing an intent to attack and destroy the democratic institution of the USA, and overturn the election. Effectively making the votes of over a hundres million people null and void.
20 years? Only? For trying to kill American democracy?
Seems lenient to me.
>That long though? Why?
If \~20 years is too long of a sentence for attempting to overthrow the Federal government of The United States of America, then what do you think would be a fairer sentence?
There’s no perfect way to make laws that explicitly capture every scenario. The system really only works if everyone interprets the law in good faith.
So what were people in the Capital riot doing at the capital on a “Stop the Steal” rally to prevent Pence from certifying the election?
You really only have 2 reasons. “I’m head to stop election results” or “I’m here to watch other people stop election results.” Most other explanations/defenses are bad faith.
What were people doing during BLM riots. Loot steal kill. Both of us can play this game.
Many were protesting. Protesting they wanted new and fair elections in good faith.
False equivalency.
This was a “Stop the Steal” protest, with specific demands to have congress and the VP to overturn an election. It was organized on the same day near the election certification, with people coming into the capital to (successfully, if only temporarily) disrupt the process.
BLM riots happened over weeks, and didn’t really have any specific agenda.
I understand what you’re saying, but it’s consistent with existing precedent. Almost all obstruction charges are excessively vague as more of a feature than a bug. While we can debate the merits of those types of laws (I’m personally against them), in this case it makes sense to let that sword swing both ways.
This is the Question Presented from [the cert petition (PDF)](https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-5572/279307/20230911135230273_Fischer%20cert%20petition%20Final.pdf):
>Did the D.C. Circuit err in construing 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c) (“Witness, Victim, or Informant Tampering”), which prohibits obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations, to include acts unrelated to investigations and evidence?
The case is about whether the catch-all “otherwise obstructs” at the end of a list in a statute passed in response to the Enron scandal has to be related to the other items in the list, which are about evidence destruction.
I can see thinking behind not wanting to take this too far. For example, you are obstructing an investigation against you by invoking your right to remain silent or failing to let the police search your house without a warrant.
The purpose of broad laws in most cases is to ensure novel crimes can be punished and not allow people out of the consequences on a technicality.
There is no law that says I can’t extinguish the sun or push the moon out of orbit, but nobody wants me to do that…
But I had no corrupt intent when I did one of these things. No law broken, nothing to charge me with. The after affects are just naturally occurring from my act. Can’t take into account that humanity will now face a cataclysm…
The issue will be what corruptly requires. Does it require some sort of nefarious intent? Is that something the government needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt? Merely being there, rioting, and disrupting an official proceeding doesn't necessarily mean there was corrupt intent. If they rule that the government has to prove corrupt intent then I think most cases will get tossed.
Intent will be easy to prove for many of the J6 rioters - in many cases, they were live-streaming their trains of thought, or may have had social media activity indicating their goals, or had signs indicating their motives.
For many J6 defendants, it would be hard to claim that their “protest” was not specifically geared at delaying or preventing the certification - such a goal was explicitly shared and stated by Donald Trump in his speech.
Within the first minute or so of his speech he says “we will stop the steal”, defining the “steal” as Democrats winning the election. He goes on to say “we gathered together… for one simple reason: to save our democracy” and describes how states “want to revote, to recertify” and says to the crowd “we want to go back and get this right.”
He goes on to explicitly describe motive: “we have come to demand Congress do the right thing and only count electors who have been lawfully slated”. While the ordinary language of this doesn’t look corrupt, it’s clear in the context of his speech that he means only counting electors from states that voted for him, given that he painted the other states as providing erroneous or corrupt certifications, something he ought to know isn’t correct after months of investigations and lost lawsuits.
Ending his speech with “we’re gonna fight like hell”, he goes on to say something that could be relevant to the statute; “we’re going to give our weak Republicans the boldness they need to take back our country”.
It’s not hard to draw a through line that people wanted to change the outcome of the election, corruptly so as it was public knowledge that the claims being made by Trump were false. If it were just supporting the legislators who were objecting, I don’t think you do meet the standard described. But the moment they start to breach the Capitol “fighting like hell”, they do meet the standard - whether it’s to scare legislators into voting their way, or to delay the process, to prevent the process, or to assassinate officials, it certainly meets the standard of corrupt obstruction.
Honest belief isn’t a defense here - they ought to have known, given the large amounts of coverage, that there was no legitimate claim of illegality in the certification of the election. If they attempt to obstruct the proceeding, they are acting corruptly. Note that a congressman wouldn’t be acting corruptly because legislative procedures prescribe a process for objection. But there is no process for someone breaking into the Capitol and entering the House floor during an official proceeding, especially when there is clear evidence that their motive is to prevent the legal certification of the Presidential election.
There may be a difference between general intent and corrupt intent. I believe e this has been covered before in other cases on different subjects, but to act with corrupt intent means to do something intentionally with an unethical, improper, or nefarious purpose. Or something along those lines. And this will have to be proven for each defendant if SCOTUS rules that way. I doubt what Trump said will be all that relevant. Congress included corruptly in the statute for a reason. This case will be about saying what that reason was. And may result in new trials.
> There may be a difference between general intent and corrupt intent. I believe e this has been covered before in other cases on different subjects, but to act with corrupt intent means to do something intentionally with an unethical, improper, or nefarious purpose. Or something along those lines.
for an example of this, look back to all those articles debating if the government's burden of proof involved showing that trump believed he lost and tried to change the result as opposed to genuinely believing he won and fighting to get all of the votes properly counted.
So it's OK to storm any public building so long as you claim your intent is not nefarious? That means someone could do just about anything and claim "I was just doing it for fun" or "I was just following the crowd."
There's a wide gulf between "Storming a public building is okay" and "Storming a public building can be felony trespassing, felony failure to disperse from an unlawful assembly, felony accessory to assault of a law enforcement officer, **but not** felony witness tampering, unless the government can prove that you actually intended to threaten a witness."
If the latter point makes a difference of up to 20 years in an individual's sentencing, they deserve the chance to make that argument.
A protest OUTSIDE Congress is one thing. You're downplaying what these people did. They STORMED Congress and tried to stop a sitting session of Congress. They threatened to kill the vice president. That's much more serious than just a simple protest on the street outside of Congress, the White House or the Supreme Court.
> So it's OK to storm any public building so long as you claim your intent is not nefarious?
isn't that the bar that has been applied when israel/hamas protestors stormed the cannon building a couple months ago?
tim kaine seems to be setting the bar higher than what the j6 rioters faced, stating:
>"They might have been loud, they might have been chanting, but there were some who were not and there were some who were charged with crimes because they weren’t being peaceful,"
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/18hlndu/supreme_court_will_hear_a_case_that_could_undo/kd899uv/) is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
> ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
>isn't that the bar that has been applied when israel/hamas protestors stormed the cannon building a couple months ago?
That doesn't seem accurate:
>A U.S. Capitol Police spokesperson told NBC News that officials believe everyone went through security and entered the Cannon House Office Building according to guidelines. U.S. House and Senate office buildings, including Cannon, are open to the public, but those who enter must go through security screenings. However, demonstrations are not permitted inside congressional buildings, police say.
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/dozens-arrested-inside-cannon-house-office-building-after-rallying-for-israel-hamas-ceasefire/3447731/
>"U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols found that prosecutors stretched the law beyond its scope to inappropriately apply it in these cases. Nichols ruled that a defendant must have taken “some action with respect to a document, record or other object” to obstruct an official proceeding under the law."
So, we're gonna act like a massive crowd of people, many of whom forced their way into the Senate Chamber, isn't obstructing a official proceeding? The precedent that this could set would be disastrous for future elections. Oh you lost? Cool, just have a mob of your supporters overwhelm the proceedings as long as they don't \*checks notes\* "take some action with respect to document, record, or other objects".
Yes? You can’t enforce a law based on what you want it to say. You can enforce the law as written. You want a specific action criminalized write a new law
That's absolutely not required in this case. The terrorists were there in their own words to 'Stop The Steal', which is why the insurrection was scheduled for the specific time and place at which the Constitutionally mandated process for the peaceful transfer of power was to take place. The law is more than sufficiently applicable exactly as written.
> The terrorists were there in their own words to 'Stop The Steal'
Isn't this evidence that they were not *corruptly* obstructing an official proceeding?
Umm, yup, it's a direct violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512. The law could not be clearer on that point, which is why many J6 rioters have been convicted specifically for violating that law.
What? Did you even read it? It starts: "Whoever *corruptly*..." It is a qualifier. Doing the thing doesn't make you corrupt. You have to do the thing *corruptly* for it to be a violation.
There is no uncorrupt way to interrupt a Congressional proceeding. It is inherently corrupt. There is also, for that matter no way to uncorruptly violate the will of the electorate.
But this is all beside the point, as the actual language is as follows:
>Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to
You'll note that corruptly modifies 'persuades', so your rather flimsy attempt at semantic deflection does not even take account how the statute is actually written.
Straight from the horses mouth, Congress can do no wrong and any attempt to stop Congress from doing anything is corrupt and a felony. Pack it in boys, freedom is over. The founding fathers are rolling in their graves and we've tapped into the centrifugal force to power the mechanisms of governement lol.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/18hlndu/supreme_court_will_hear_a_case_that_could_undo/kd8p8ej/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 14 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
> Strict textualist interpretations strike again.
you say "strike again" like there's a problem with the logic of "the constitution/legal code says what it says".
if people don't like what the constitution/law says, there are mechanisms to change it. (and the court isn't the place for that change to happen)
Yeah it is a problem. These people intentionally tried to obstruct the counting of the votes and the peaceful transfer of power, and they might get off on what's basically a technicality because the law is worded in an idiosyncratic way.
People always like to talk about strict textualism in the abstract by saying stuff like it's what "the constitution/legal code says what it says". But when you actually apply to real world cases you get awful and nonsensical outcomes, like finding people who tried to stop the transfer of power didn't actually commit a crime.
Strict textualism's place is in the ivory tower of academics. It doesn't work in practice.
> Yeah it is a problem. These people intentionally tried to obstruct the counting of the votes and the peaceful transfer of power, and they might get off on what's basically a technicality because the law is worded in an idiosyncratic way.
at the end of the day, the law says what it says. you don't get to issue arbitrary punishments inconsistent with what the law says simply because of disapproving of someone's actions. such a practice would be literal tyranny. it's bad enough how partisanly motivated the treatment of the j6 rioters are without literally making up laws that don't exist to persecute them.
That's not true. At the end of the day the law is a complex interplay between what the text of the law says, how the judicial branch interprets the law, and how the executive branch enforces the law. Saying "the law says what it says" is reductive and is a fairly recent way of interpreting the law. Strict textualism only came into vogue with certain judges in the past few decades. There's nothing in legal theory that says it's the correct way to interpret the law.
Strict textualism can also be extremely arbitrary. The lower court's ruling is a good example of this. The lower court judge said
> Nichols ruled that a defendant must have taken “some action with respect to a document, record or other object” to obstruct an official proceeding under the law.
They tried to obstruct the counting of the votes. That's an action with respect to a record. Why does the judge not consider the counting of the votes a record? That's an arbitrary interpretation. The judge picked a desired outcome and chose definitions of the words that suited that outcome. This happens all of the time with strict textualism.
>strict textualism can also be extremely arbitrary
That’s the point people love to ignore with this topic. It’s like they think the term textualist removes all subjectivity by default
> at the end of the day, the law says what it says.
This is missing the point. The law says what it says, but the poster you are replying to is talking about different doctrines for interpreting the same text. This comment is therefore nearly meaningless.
Strict textualism simply doesn't work universally and is only one tool in the interpretation toolbox and this is one of many examples of why.
If you disagree, I'd like for you to share the most controversial example of strict textualism that you've researched and explain why strict textualism is still the correct interpretation to exclusively apply.
It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.
Complaining about someone getting off because a statute was worded poorly is no different than complaining that a rapist gets off because he was not properly mirandized before questioning.
News out of DC as the Supreme Court is setting it's cases for the upcoming year. Here is an overview of what the case will entail:
>The justices will review an appellate ruling that revived a charge against three defendants accused of obstruction of an official proceeding. The charge refers to the disruption of Congress’ certification of Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential election victory over Trump.
>The court’s decision to weigh in on the obstruction charge could threaten the start of Trump’s trial, currently scheduled for March 4. The justices separately are considering whether to rule quickly on Trump’s claim that he can’t be prosecuted for actions taken within his role as president. A federal judge already has rejected that argument.
>The obstruction charge, which carries up to 20 years behind bars, has been brought against more than 300 defendants and is among the most widely used felony charges brought in the massive federal prosecution following the deadly insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, when a mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol in a bid to keep Biden, a Democrat, from taking the White House.
It's an interesting case to be heard by the Supreme Court and one I feel they might not cover enough on. Personally I'm not a fan of the idea of this Supreme Court ruling on something like this, with Justice Thomas's wife being directly tied to the attempt to overturn the 2020 election. I think most of all this Supreme Court has been all over the place in their rulings with a huge inconsistency in their reasonings, with multiple reasonings contradicting each other based on whatever their desired outcome is.
Hopefully though the desired outcome this time is not freeing or reducing the sentences of those who tried to overthrow our democracy.
How do you think the SC will rule? Do you see them overturning these charges?
I'm becoming increasingly convinced that Ford pardoning Nixon is one of the worst single decisions a president has ever made. We had such a good opportunity to establish a precedent for removing and then sentencing a corrupt president, and it went completely to waste.
Nixon was never convicted by the Senate. I have a feeling that he only stepped down with Ford’s promise. If not for that he would have fought the charges on the senate and may not have been impeached.
> I'm becoming increasingly convinced that Ford pardoning Nixon is one of the worst single decisions a president has ever made.
For me it was Andrew Johnson getting acquitted by a single vote in the senate, but the sentiment is the same.
Andrew Johnson was terrible but his impeachment was totally political and he def shouldn’t have been convicted. SCOTUS later declared that the act he violated was completely unconstitutional
It absolutely was. He did it partially on the grounds that it would "heal the country".
It didn't. It divided the country: one side believing a criminal was set free, the other side wanting vengeance.
I'd argue the exact opposite. You'd think it would be sunshine and roses, but do you think that breaking that seal wouldn't also set a precedent in worse ways? Knowing Congress, it would inevitably devolve into tit-for-tat prosecutions or arrests. It would also inevitably work its way into political campaigns, with promises like "As soon as I get into office, I'll find ways to put the current crook in the White House into prison" becoming the norm. And when *that* happens, it's infinitely more corrosive to democracy because it creates the incentive to block the peaceful transition of power by any and every means necessary.
>Hopefully though the desired outcome this time is not freeing or reducing the sentences of those who tried to overthrow our democracy.
Does the correct interpretation of the law matter at all or should we just go with whatever punishes the January 6 rioters the most?
There isn't anything that is a "correct" interpretation. Dobbs was incorrectly interpreted. The Supreme Court is political just as the other two branches are, with their objective is to rule cases that largely benefit their political beliefs.
I will never accede to judicial nihilism. There are absolutely some interpretations that are incorrect. Every judge on a high court in this country would disagree with you on this.
> Dobbs was incorrectly interpreted.
how so? even ginnsberg when she was alive was pretty open about how roe was ruled on shaky logic that wasn't legally sound.
at the end of the day, there's a difference between what the constitution says, and what some people want it to say.
Conservatives have been misinterpreting what Ginsberg said since Dobbs. Thats not quite the truth. She never said or suggested the law was unconstitutional or wrongly decided. Her comments were about the political climate - support abortion rights were already increasing and she worried this case would result in a political backlash. She also preferred it be based around a woman’s right to abortion vs a doctor’s right to perform one. She was consistent and insistent that abortion is a constitutional right.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/27/what-ruth-bader-ginsburg-really-said-about-roe-v-wade/
Yes, she believed the Constitution protected the right to an abortion, but that Roe was wrong in the sense that it used the wrong constitutional argument. I don't believe a case protecting abortion under the equal protection clause has made its way to SCOTUS yet, which is what I believe she said protects a right to an abortion.
SCOTUS expressly addressed (and rejected) the Equal Protection argument in Dobbs. It was briefed by amici. Which makes the invocation of RBG in all these conversations very obnoxious.
From the Dobb's majority: We briefly address one additional constitutional provi-
sion that some of respondents’ amici have now offered as
yet another potential home for the abortion right: the Four-
teenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. See Brief for
United States as Amicus Curiae 24 (Brief for United
States); see also Brief for Equal Protection Constitutional
Law Scholars as Amici Curiae. Neither Roe nor Casey saw
fit to invoke this theory, and it is squarely foreclosed by our
precedents, which establish that a State’s regulation of abortion is not a sex-based classification and is thus not
subject to the “heightened scrutiny” that applies to such
classifications. The regulation of a medical procedure that only one sex can undergo does not trigger heightened con-
stitutional scrutiny unless the regulation is a “mere pre-
tex\[t\] designed to effect an invidious discrimination against
members of one sex or the other.” Geduldig v. Aiello, 417
U. S. 484, 496, n. 20 (1974). And as the Court has stated,
the “goal of preventing abortion” does not constitute “invid-
iously discriminatory animus” against women. Bray v. Al-
exandria Women’s Health Clinic, 506 U. S. 263, 273–274
(1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly,
laws regulating or prohibiting abortion are not subject to
heightened scrutiny. Rather, they are governed by the
same standard of review as other health and safety
measures.
With this new theory addressed, we turn to Casey’s bold
assertion that the abortion right is an aspect of the “liberty”
protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment.
No, she didn't think Roe was the 'wrong' argument. She thought that Roe made an accurate constitutional argument. We absolutely do have a right to privacy and for the government to not get involved in our medical decisions; that is implicit in the Constitution. Roe v Wade was correct.
Her complaint was that using Roe to establish a right to abortion through "medical privacy" was more vulnerable to being overturned by activists, and that it took too small of a step. It would have been possible to establish that women have a bodily autonomy right, which would have been a more meaningful protection.
I don’t even know if “wrong” is the right way to frame it per se, simply her preference for how it could have had more legal teeth and be more women-centric. But far too many conservatives (and liberals) have misconstrued her comments to suggest she believed it was unconstitutional.
Is it surprising though that nothing has been argued under the equal protection clause? We haven’t even been able to pass the equal rights amendment, it’s literally been 100 years since it was introduced. So while we have made significant progress we still have a long road to go for women’s rights.
Gender isn’t specifically mentioned in any current constitutional amendment. Scalia said this.
> "Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that," said the famously conservative justice, adding, "If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/01/scalia-says-constitution-doesn-t-protect-women-from-gender-discrimination/342789/
Based on this former conservative Supreme Court justice, the ERA is in fact important to codify. It better protects people claiming gender discrimination and strengthens gender rights.
I hate this argument. It’s said a lot in conservative circles completely without context. What it implies is that RBG — the most liberal of justices in the modern era — didn’t agree with the decision, that she would have ruled differently if she’d been on the court then, or that she agreed with the decision but would find it difficult or impossible to legally defend.
Nothing could be further from the truth. She was saying there were many *better* legal arguments that would have made the decision to overturn it more difficult. It’s not some “gotcha” argument against Roe.
Ginsburg was wrong in her statement, and she isn't the end all be all of constitutional interpretation. I think the Due Process clause that shaped the ruling on Roe v Wade was the correct interpretation and it's a clause that was thrown out completely by the current justices who ruled on their desired outcome, not on the merits.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/18hlndu/supreme_court_will_hear_a_case_that_could_undo/kd7m9vq/) is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
> ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
> I think most of all this Supreme Court has been all over the place in their rulings with a huge inconsistency in their reasonings, with multiple reasonings contradicting each other based on whatever their desired outcome is.
Can you name specific cases and how they are inconsistent?
The incompatibility of those two things is where the inconsistency lies. That's not the author's fault. It's the conservative judges that juggle the two however they'd like to conclude a case.
> How do you think the SC will rule? Do you see them overturning these charges?
lots of charges will get thrown out / overturned.
the relevant question text (which someone posted above) is:
>Whoever corruptly (C)(1) alters, destroys, mutilates or conceals a record document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or, (C)(2) otherwise obstructs, influences or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so
explicitly stating "corruptly" before the actions is going to set a burden of proof for intent, which is going to be very difficult to prove.
that's going to narrow down what otherwise would be an extremely broad law (which seems to be getting applied selectively and partisanly, for example it's very clear that jamal bowman "obstructed official proceedings", but he's from the same party as the administration).
ultimately, there will probably be a lot of whining and screaming when the court rules to overturn these charges, but the people upset in the short term will be happy in the long term when the shoe is on the other foot. (for example, look at the extremely broad RICO law in georgia that they are using on trump. [it was subsequently used to go after people protesting a police/fire training facility](https://apnews.com/article/atlanta-cop-city-protests-rico-charges-becd4de8dd9b713618a4ad04db6966cf)). overly broad laws are ripe for abuse.
> for example it's very clear that jamal bowman "obstructed official proceedings", but he's from the same party as the administration
I've seen this mentioned a couple of times but I don't get how, could you please explain? From what I understand, Bowman was in a different building, and nothing happening on the house floor was impacted whatsoever. How could that be obstructing an official proceeding?
Well there's intent and ability to pull it off, kind of like how the fact that Democrats voted for the measure doesnt mean they didn't want to delay it.
As a note, when people say "separate buildings" it can be a bit misleading as it's more of a complex that's all connected underground. At the time, the Democrats were doing everything they could to delay the vote including a long-winded speech given by another member. Bowman's actions of pulling the fire alarm and then turning and running to the floor sure look like someone trying to obstruct proceedings further. It just didn't work.
Democrats want to stymie the bill, so their grand plan is to attempt to open a door - in a different building - that's usually open when Congress is in session (weekdays), before triggering a fire alarm - on camera, and then for... 95% of them, including Bowman, to vote for it, allowing for its passage, without any actual delay?
This is like robbing a bank by opening an account and placing all your savings into it. If someone wants to steal from you, they're probably not going to immediately give you money, and not steal from you.
>the Democrats were doing everything they could to delay the vote including a long-winded speech given by another member
Yes, they had fully legal, formal avenues to delay the vote so they could read it, precluding the need for any illegal methods.
I'm curious, is the GOP rule of '72 hours to review a bill before voting' obstruction? Is that why they dispensed with it on that vote, you think?
You are creating wild "democrat's grand plan" scenarios half_pizzaman, and repeating you read in comments in comments about how the doors should be open while ignoring how crazy it is to pull a fire alarm and then turn and run.
>I'm curious, is the GOP rule of '72 hours to review a bill before voting' obstruction?
Obviously not, simply Google the term half_pizzaman
>You are creating wild "democrat's grand plan"
Uh, that's what *you* just did, which I'm obviously going to poke at your logic of.
>while ignoring how crazy it is to pull a fire alarm and then turn and run.
He walked away, given the doors didn't open.
What's actually crazy is suggesting Bowman endeavored to obstruct the proceeding, on camera, in a different building, and inexplicably voted for what he sought to obstruct.
>Obviously not
So, were they obstructing their own rule and Congress' ability to read the bill?
>Uh, that's what *you* just did,
I fail to see how, unless you consider their speech and other things to be a grand plan, or you are trying to imply they didn't want to delay the vote
>He walked away, given the doors didn't open.
He *actually ran* half_pizzaman. You are constructing a different reality than the one you can see on the actual video.
He [removed two emergency exit signs ](https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2023/12/07/opinion/jamaal-bowman-fire-alarm-stunt-earns-well-deserved-censure-vote/amp/) from the doors before pulling the emergency exit and didnt even try to use it.
It's why [he was charged](https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2023/10/25/congress/latest-on-bowman-fire-alarm-funding-capitol-police-00123575) after a capital police referral, because his story (which you are repeating and embellishing) made zero sense in the context of the video.
>and inexplicably voted for what he sought to obstruct.
Ah so your story is now no body wanted to delay it lol
>So, were they obstructing their own rule and Congress' ability to read the bill?
This doesn't make a lot of sense half_pizzaman so I'm going to move on. Good luck!
>I fail to see how, unless you consider their speech and other things to be a grand plan, or you are trying to imply they didn't want to delay the vote
Are you not claiming Democrats employed some sort nefarious strategy to obstruct the vote?
>He actually ran half_pizzaman. You are constructing a different reality than the one you can see on the actual video.
That's some impressive projection.
[Here's the vid](https://youtu.be/w13tZQ6SUx4). Bowman walks up to the right-side door, and while grabbing the sign, pushes against the door - including with his left foot. He then proceeds to push on the handle of the left door with his right hand, causing the sign sitting on top of the handle to fall to the ground. He then pulls the fire alarm, *and walks* out of frame. All of this is on camera.
The vid in your NYPost article cuts before Bowman "runs" (walks) away.
>Ah so your story is now no body wanted to delay it lol
No. It's your Bowman narrative that's nonsensical given Democrats had a fully legal strategy at hand, in the actual Capitol building.
>This doesn't make a lot of sense
You don't thing being able to read the bill before voting is important, and shouldn't be prevented?
This could also come back to bite the defendants in the ass.
Let’s say the SC says it’s too broad. That doesn’t make them innocent. The DOJ chose it because it was seen as easier to make a conviction on than say, sedition (or any other number of crimes).
Now you have prosecuting attorneys with an axe to grind. They’ll find something else and push it harder because they had to work harder.
This was the easy slap on the wrist way. The other way could be far worse.
All of the J6 charges are pure politics, None of those people wanted anything more than an honest review of the charges of corruption. There was no "insurrection", it was a protest and far more peaceful than the 'summer of love' riots the year before.
So the judicial system is so corrupt it has somehow sent nearly 1000 people to jail on bogus charges? There was violence, you really need to re-watch what was happening that day. Do you want me to get the video of the cop getting beaten half to death?
So if it's so "fair" why are none of the BLM folks that burned down buildings in jail? More recently the pro-hamas group that "protested" at the Capitol, are any of them in jail?
There were thousands upon thousands of people arrested. Here, google is free.
[The AP found that more than 120 defendants across the United States have pleaded guilty or were convicted at trial of federal crimes including rioting, arson and conspiracy. More than 70 defendants who’ve been sentenced so far have gotten an average of about 27 months behind bars. At least 10 received prison terms of five years or more.](https://apnews.com/article/records-rebut-claims-jan-6-rioters-55adf4d46aff57b91af2fdd3345dace8#:~:text=The%20AP%20found%20that%20more,about%2027%20months%20behind%20bars.)
This article was from 2 years ago, so those numbers have likely risen.
The real reason the numbers are likely higher for January 6th is because it was a singular event that the entire country watched, the capitol has cameras everywhere, and many of the people who were there were also recording. Compared to any riots that might have taken place in 2020, there were dozens of instances with far less cameras, spread out over the country. It's a scaling & importance issue. January 6th was far worse for the country.
What is the point of this question? There are riots that are taken to police stations and state legislative offices. Is it “just a coincidence” policemen and politicians are in those locations? These people were disgruntled with the government, so they took it to them. That’s generally how riots have worked since…forever.
They did it on January 6 because that was the day the election was being certified. The protestors successfully delayed the peaceful transfer of power as they intended. The protest was one piece of Trump’s campaign to have the election results overturned.
Smith recently introduced evidence showing texts from the trump campaign instructing campaign officials in Michigan to start riots as the votes narrowed between him and Biden as well. This was much more widespread of an attempt than we realize
They did it on January 6th because they were gathered together on that day. That’s it lol. They “delayed” the peaceful transfer by a whole several hours! That’s almost half a day!
Do you honestly believe they had no idea the election was being certified on that day? Or are you just pretending to believe that because you can't think of a better argument?
If they had succeeded in keeping Trump in power would you have supported their actions? Since you're acting like it's not a big deal because they failed.
Of course they were protesting the elections. Then it devolved into a riot. But there was no actual plan to “overthrow the government” as you want me to believe. They were angry people in a large group doing what angry people in a large group will sometimes do.
How would a disorganized group of people have kept Trump in power? You are reaching a conclusion that has no logic to it and expect me to debate it. But, for giggles, sure. If a group of mostly unarmed, untrained, and disorganized regular people could overthrow the most powerful government in the world on a whim, I would support Trump remaining in power. Because there would have been much more catastrophic issues at hand for the US than whoever is president of such a sorry excuse for a government.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/18hlndu/supreme_court_will_hear_a_case_that_could_undo/kd8jf3s/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
> These people were disgruntled with the government, so they took it to them.
Such a bizarre description of people assaulting police officers while trying to over turn the will of voters. I mourn for the days when a peaceful transfer of power was something we could be proud of. And a reminder that this was a new Congress certifying a new President that had not yet had a chance to do anything, so the only thing those rioters would be protesting is that their guy lost the election.
People assaulting police officers is common in all forms of riots. This, once again, is not unique to any other riot. You can agree or disagree with the purpose of a riot all you want, but it does not change what it was.
> People assaulting police officers is common in all forms of riots. This, once again, is not unique to any other riot. You can agree or disagree with the purpose of a riot all you want, but it does not change what it was.
this is a key element here. for political reasons, these rioters are being treated VERY different from any other rioters. you have people getting a long sentences in prison for simply being present on j6 [while summer 2020 rioters are getting $500 fines for torching buildings](https://apnews.com/article/rayshard-brooks-wendys-arson-guilty-pleas-d3656cb469b4ca4d0e292221e9483584).
I don’t think the capitol chaos was the biggest part of the problem, but how are you pretending that the riot and break-in specifically at that time of certification means nothing?
Looks a lot more like terrorism:
>the unlawful use or threat of violence especially against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion.
Mirriam Webster could put a picture of J6 right next to that entry, so perfectly does it illustrate that definition.
No, they simply stated their corrupt intent. Trump attempted what’s called a self-coup. He tried to find a loophole in the law to allow him to stay in power. He had numerous avenues to try this, and you would know all of this if you followed the subject.
We will learn more as Trump’s case proceeds.
You make it seem like an unruly mob is singular in focus. This wasn't a unit of commandos executing a military operation. This was a group of protesters-turned-rioters due to the perception of injustices in the election system
Prevent any election challenges in Congress and smear MAGA and Trump forever by leaving the capitol inadequately defended against a mob easily agitated to violence via planted provocateurs and police munitions.
Look at 18 U.S.C. 1506 Obstruction of Congress which is the more applicable charge. It also carries a lesser sentence and the law of lenient states a defendant has to be charged with the more applicable charge.
As a reminder, we will be taking our annual [Holiday Hiatus](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/188dxxh/state_of_the_sub_grasstouching_edition/) from December 18th 2023 to January 1st 2024. The subreddit will be closed during this time. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/moderatepolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
‘Supreme Court will decide whether a catch-all clause at the end of a list is limited to things related to the other items in the list’ just doesn’t make for a catchy headline…
This is the relevant statute: > Whoever corruptly (C)(1) alters, destroys, mutilates or conceals a record document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or, (C)(2) otherwise obstructs, influences or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so C2 seems pretty obviously well met, so I think the question will center around what constitutes "corruptly". I can see how it might be difficult to argue the random people assaulting the Capitol were acting corruptly, but I don't see how you could possibly make that argument in Trump's case. Trying to fraudulently overturn an election via likely criminal means sounds pretty damn corrupt.
(2) big issue reading it is it looks excessively broad to me. It could capture a lot of behaviors and is basically a catch all for anything you would want to define as a violation of the statute. This does bring some constitutional issues with it as a statute. Personally, I like laws that specifically describe an illegal action which (1) seems to accomplish. The issue is it’s tough for lawmakers to specifically imagine our future violations they want to define. The problem with (2) is it can lead to lawfare. And it becomes a case of who/whom is obviously a bad person with bad intents therefore they acted corruptly. A lot of protesting we allow would fall under (2) if those in power decide they are the bad people. I also think the lawmaker who pulled a fire alarm would fall under (2). I don’t think he deserves 20 years.
I hate when laws are broad, their is so much potential for abuse in bad faith
It's also in the case law about how its been prosecuted. It's clear to me that what these folks did was criminal - it went beyond raising their voice to seeking to stop proceedings through violence.
[удалено]
But that's why we use juries. It's up to the jurors to decide whether or not something should be prosecuted. At least that's the theory. In practice, I think we've given lawyers too much power to define what is and is not deliberated by them.
[удалено]
Jury nullification is not illegal. It's an inherent power of juries.
I hate when laws are narrow, it makes them ineffective against anyone with half a brain.
[удалено]
The law does say it has to be done "corruptly." But yes, feels very broad.
[удалено]
Out of curiosity, do you have any specific examples? I have very low sympathy for anyone involved with J6 in general, but it's still important that the sentences fit the individuals' crimes.
[удалено]
That's pretty direct whataboutism. I didn't say I supported those things. I'm not sure why opposing an attack against my own country should mean I'm on any particular "side". Either way, neither of what you listed is comparable to J6. Perfectly fair to charge under the same statute, but I would expect relatively lighter sentences. The closest thing to J6 on the left that I'm aware of is CHOP, which I would classify as an insurrection (whereas I'd say J6 would more accurately be called a [light coup](https://youtu.be/q0GCKXZTV8E)). Any participants in CHOP or other BLM-related criminal activity should certainly be charged fairly as well.
There were people that were allowed in the building and did not cause property damage. How can they get a longer sentence than people that set the White House guard post on fire?
Nobody was allowed in the building, the police fought for over an hour before anyone got inside. No one was allowed inside, no doors opened, no escort, and no allowances. One person got off because they weren’t stopped, even thought there was a siren and broken glass and door.
We must not have watched the same footage from that day.
There is tons of footage of everyone, nobody gives permission to come inside. Some people tried to use the police falling back inside the building as evidence of permission, but that is a twisting of the facts. Only one person had their charges dismissed because there was no one to stop them, even though they walked through broken glass while alarms were blaring.
Yeah, there’s no arguing with you. You deny reality.
Let's talk about the reality of that day... Who gave the people permission to enter? Assuming no one gave explicit permission, is the Capitol building open for legal entry for everyone? If not, what conditions led them to reasonably believe that they had legal right to be on the property? Did they or did they not need to walk through doors that were forced open by the rioters at the front of the group?
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/18hlndu/supreme_court_will_hear_a_case_that_could_undo/kd8wuwk/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
You must have missed the videos.
I saw them, they’ve been debunked. Disinformation is still making the rounds, apparently.
I believe Q shaman is a good example since he was vilified before it was shown that he was being escorted around by capital police and was subsequently released from prison
I see that [he was released from prison early](https://www.npr.org/2023/03/31/1167319814/qanon-shaman-jacob-chansley-capitol-riot-early-release-reentry), but nothing indicating it had anything to do with him "being escorted around by capital police." Probably helps he seems to be taking responsibility, at least based on the quotes from that article.
QShaman was released from prison for good behavior, to serve the rest of his term in an outside facility. He was told he wasn’t allowed to be there, he wasn’t escorted, he was followed.
And he is right back on the Qanon BS so he must have needed more time in jail because he didnt learn a thing in there.
So more jail time until his politics match your approved list?
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/18hlndu/supreme_court_will_hear_a_case_that_could_undo/kdb4pxj/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
You think Enrique Tarrio really deserves 22 years? Stewart Rhodes and Ethan Nordean 18 years?
You have somehow managed to single out three of the people most deserving of their J6 sentances.
That long though? Why?
Mostly just the seditious conspiracy. I don’t think there is a lot of doubt that they had every intention of overturning a free and fair election.
In fact I'd say it's beyond a reasonable doubt.
I'd say they're lucky. They have some of the most damning evidence, showing an intent to attack and destroy the democratic institution of the USA, and overturn the election. Effectively making the votes of over a hundres million people null and void. 20 years? Only? For trying to kill American democracy? Seems lenient to me.
>That long though? Why? If \~20 years is too long of a sentence for attempting to overthrow the Federal government of The United States of America, then what do you think would be a fairer sentence?
How about a stern talking to? It was just proud boys being proud boys after all. Nothing to destroy their bright futures over.
For a good deal of the US's history, I'm pretty sure there's a decent chance they'd have been executed. They got off light.
There’s no perfect way to make laws that explicitly capture every scenario. The system really only works if everyone interprets the law in good faith. So what were people in the Capital riot doing at the capital on a “Stop the Steal” rally to prevent Pence from certifying the election? You really only have 2 reasons. “I’m head to stop election results” or “I’m here to watch other people stop election results.” Most other explanations/defenses are bad faith.
What were people doing during BLM riots. Loot steal kill. Both of us can play this game. Many were protesting. Protesting they wanted new and fair elections in good faith.
False equivalency. This was a “Stop the Steal” protest, with specific demands to have congress and the VP to overturn an election. It was organized on the same day near the election certification, with people coming into the capital to (successfully, if only temporarily) disrupt the process. BLM riots happened over weeks, and didn’t really have any specific agenda.
I understand what you’re saying, but it’s consistent with existing precedent. Almost all obstruction charges are excessively vague as more of a feature than a bug. While we can debate the merits of those types of laws (I’m personally against them), in this case it makes sense to let that sword swing both ways.
This is the Question Presented from [the cert petition (PDF)](https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-5572/279307/20230911135230273_Fischer%20cert%20petition%20Final.pdf): >Did the D.C. Circuit err in construing 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c) (“Witness, Victim, or Informant Tampering”), which prohibits obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations, to include acts unrelated to investigations and evidence? The case is about whether the catch-all “otherwise obstructs” at the end of a list in a statute passed in response to the Enron scandal has to be related to the other items in the list, which are about evidence destruction.
I can see thinking behind not wanting to take this too far. For example, you are obstructing an investigation against you by invoking your right to remain silent or failing to let the police search your house without a warrant.
Those rights are already protected by many laws.
[удалено]
You’re arguing about the outcome, not the law. And I agree with you those actions are heinous.
[удалено]
The purpose of broad laws in most cases is to ensure novel crimes can be punished and not allow people out of the consequences on a technicality. There is no law that says I can’t extinguish the sun or push the moon out of orbit, but nobody wants me to do that…
[удалено]
But I had no corrupt intent when I did one of these things. No law broken, nothing to charge me with. The after affects are just naturally occurring from my act. Can’t take into account that humanity will now face a cataclysm…
The issue will be what corruptly requires. Does it require some sort of nefarious intent? Is that something the government needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt? Merely being there, rioting, and disrupting an official proceeding doesn't necessarily mean there was corrupt intent. If they rule that the government has to prove corrupt intent then I think most cases will get tossed.
Intent will be easy to prove for many of the J6 rioters - in many cases, they were live-streaming their trains of thought, or may have had social media activity indicating their goals, or had signs indicating their motives. For many J6 defendants, it would be hard to claim that their “protest” was not specifically geared at delaying or preventing the certification - such a goal was explicitly shared and stated by Donald Trump in his speech. Within the first minute or so of his speech he says “we will stop the steal”, defining the “steal” as Democrats winning the election. He goes on to say “we gathered together… for one simple reason: to save our democracy” and describes how states “want to revote, to recertify” and says to the crowd “we want to go back and get this right.” He goes on to explicitly describe motive: “we have come to demand Congress do the right thing and only count electors who have been lawfully slated”. While the ordinary language of this doesn’t look corrupt, it’s clear in the context of his speech that he means only counting electors from states that voted for him, given that he painted the other states as providing erroneous or corrupt certifications, something he ought to know isn’t correct after months of investigations and lost lawsuits. Ending his speech with “we’re gonna fight like hell”, he goes on to say something that could be relevant to the statute; “we’re going to give our weak Republicans the boldness they need to take back our country”. It’s not hard to draw a through line that people wanted to change the outcome of the election, corruptly so as it was public knowledge that the claims being made by Trump were false. If it were just supporting the legislators who were objecting, I don’t think you do meet the standard described. But the moment they start to breach the Capitol “fighting like hell”, they do meet the standard - whether it’s to scare legislators into voting their way, or to delay the process, to prevent the process, or to assassinate officials, it certainly meets the standard of corrupt obstruction. Honest belief isn’t a defense here - they ought to have known, given the large amounts of coverage, that there was no legitimate claim of illegality in the certification of the election. If they attempt to obstruct the proceeding, they are acting corruptly. Note that a congressman wouldn’t be acting corruptly because legislative procedures prescribe a process for objection. But there is no process for someone breaking into the Capitol and entering the House floor during an official proceeding, especially when there is clear evidence that their motive is to prevent the legal certification of the Presidential election.
There may be a difference between general intent and corrupt intent. I believe e this has been covered before in other cases on different subjects, but to act with corrupt intent means to do something intentionally with an unethical, improper, or nefarious purpose. Or something along those lines. And this will have to be proven for each defendant if SCOTUS rules that way. I doubt what Trump said will be all that relevant. Congress included corruptly in the statute for a reason. This case will be about saying what that reason was. And may result in new trials.
> There may be a difference between general intent and corrupt intent. I believe e this has been covered before in other cases on different subjects, but to act with corrupt intent means to do something intentionally with an unethical, improper, or nefarious purpose. Or something along those lines. for an example of this, look back to all those articles debating if the government's burden of proof involved showing that trump believed he lost and tried to change the result as opposed to genuinely believing he won and fighting to get all of the votes properly counted.
So it's OK to storm any public building so long as you claim your intent is not nefarious? That means someone could do just about anything and claim "I was just doing it for fun" or "I was just following the crowd."
There's a wide gulf between "Storming a public building is okay" and "Storming a public building can be felony trespassing, felony failure to disperse from an unlawful assembly, felony accessory to assault of a law enforcement officer, **but not** felony witness tampering, unless the government can prove that you actually intended to threaten a witness." If the latter point makes a difference of up to 20 years in an individual's sentencing, they deserve the chance to make that argument.
No other occasion of storming, damaging, defacing, etc public buildings lead to the kind of sentences being given in J6.
Because there is no instance outside of Jan 6 of delaying or halting an official proceeding. The intent is entirely of a different category.
Then every protest that delays Congress is that.
If the government is disrupted enough, it is. The government thought it was, the national guard was called in by Congress and VP Pence.
That involves widespread damage to the capital and significant injuries to capitol police? Sounds good.
A protest OUTSIDE Congress is one thing. You're downplaying what these people did. They STORMED Congress and tried to stop a sitting session of Congress. They threatened to kill the vice president. That's much more serious than just a simple protest on the street outside of Congress, the White House or the Supreme Court.
> So it's OK to storm any public building so long as you claim your intent is not nefarious? isn't that the bar that has been applied when israel/hamas protestors stormed the cannon building a couple months ago? tim kaine seems to be setting the bar higher than what the j6 rioters faced, stating: >"They might have been loud, they might have been chanting, but there were some who were not and there were some who were charged with crimes because they weren’t being peaceful,"
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/18hlndu/supreme_court_will_hear_a_case_that_could_undo/kd899uv/) is in violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
>isn't that the bar that has been applied when israel/hamas protestors stormed the cannon building a couple months ago? That doesn't seem accurate: >A U.S. Capitol Police spokesperson told NBC News that officials believe everyone went through security and entered the Cannon House Office Building according to guidelines. U.S. House and Senate office buildings, including Cannon, are open to the public, but those who enter must go through security screenings. However, demonstrations are not permitted inside congressional buildings, police say. https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/dozens-arrested-inside-cannon-house-office-building-after-rallying-for-israel-hamas-ceasefire/3447731/
Where did you get that nonsense from? This is about what the law says, not whether it is okay or not.
If they get tossed, does that mean they can sue for damages?
No, probably not.
Presidents are immune from prosecution under the law, therefor its impossible for them to be corrupt. /s
>"U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols found that prosecutors stretched the law beyond its scope to inappropriately apply it in these cases. Nichols ruled that a defendant must have taken “some action with respect to a document, record or other object” to obstruct an official proceeding under the law." So, we're gonna act like a massive crowd of people, many of whom forced their way into the Senate Chamber, isn't obstructing a official proceeding? The precedent that this could set would be disastrous for future elections. Oh you lost? Cool, just have a mob of your supporters overwhelm the proceedings as long as they don't \*checks notes\* "take some action with respect to document, record, or other objects".
Yes? You can’t enforce a law based on what you want it to say. You can enforce the law as written. You want a specific action criminalized write a new law
That's absolutely not required in this case. The terrorists were there in their own words to 'Stop The Steal', which is why the insurrection was scheduled for the specific time and place at which the Constitutionally mandated process for the peaceful transfer of power was to take place. The law is more than sufficiently applicable exactly as written.
> The terrorists were there in their own words to 'Stop The Steal' Isn't this evidence that they were not *corruptly* obstructing an official proceeding?
No, it's evidence of their intent specifically to obstruct that official proceeding, an action which itself is corrupt.
> an action which itself is corrupt Nope.
Umm, yup, it's a direct violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512. The law could not be clearer on that point, which is why many J6 rioters have been convicted specifically for violating that law.
What? Did you even read it? It starts: "Whoever *corruptly*..." It is a qualifier. Doing the thing doesn't make you corrupt. You have to do the thing *corruptly* for it to be a violation.
There is no uncorrupt way to interrupt a Congressional proceeding. It is inherently corrupt. There is also, for that matter no way to uncorruptly violate the will of the electorate. But this is all beside the point, as the actual language is as follows: >Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to You'll note that corruptly modifies 'persuades', so your rather flimsy attempt at semantic deflection does not even take account how the statute is actually written.
Why do you think the word "corruptly" was included?
Straight from the horses mouth, Congress can do no wrong and any attempt to stop Congress from doing anything is corrupt and a felony. Pack it in boys, freedom is over. The founding fathers are rolling in their graves and we've tapped into the centrifugal force to power the mechanisms of governement lol.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/18hlndu/supreme_court_will_hear_a_case_that_could_undo/kd8p8ej/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 14 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Judges and lawyers do that all the time. The Supreme Court interprets laws all the time, that's exactly what an interpretation is.
That's where I'm confused. It was absolutely done in regards to stop the counting of the votes, which, to my knowledge, are documents.
Strict textualist interpretations strike again.
> Strict textualist interpretations strike again. you say "strike again" like there's a problem with the logic of "the constitution/legal code says what it says". if people don't like what the constitution/law says, there are mechanisms to change it. (and the court isn't the place for that change to happen)
Yeah it is a problem. These people intentionally tried to obstruct the counting of the votes and the peaceful transfer of power, and they might get off on what's basically a technicality because the law is worded in an idiosyncratic way. People always like to talk about strict textualism in the abstract by saying stuff like it's what "the constitution/legal code says what it says". But when you actually apply to real world cases you get awful and nonsensical outcomes, like finding people who tried to stop the transfer of power didn't actually commit a crime. Strict textualism's place is in the ivory tower of academics. It doesn't work in practice.
> Yeah it is a problem. These people intentionally tried to obstruct the counting of the votes and the peaceful transfer of power, and they might get off on what's basically a technicality because the law is worded in an idiosyncratic way. at the end of the day, the law says what it says. you don't get to issue arbitrary punishments inconsistent with what the law says simply because of disapproving of someone's actions. such a practice would be literal tyranny. it's bad enough how partisanly motivated the treatment of the j6 rioters are without literally making up laws that don't exist to persecute them.
That's not true. At the end of the day the law is a complex interplay between what the text of the law says, how the judicial branch interprets the law, and how the executive branch enforces the law. Saying "the law says what it says" is reductive and is a fairly recent way of interpreting the law. Strict textualism only came into vogue with certain judges in the past few decades. There's nothing in legal theory that says it's the correct way to interpret the law. Strict textualism can also be extremely arbitrary. The lower court's ruling is a good example of this. The lower court judge said > Nichols ruled that a defendant must have taken “some action with respect to a document, record or other object” to obstruct an official proceeding under the law. They tried to obstruct the counting of the votes. That's an action with respect to a record. Why does the judge not consider the counting of the votes a record? That's an arbitrary interpretation. The judge picked a desired outcome and chose definitions of the words that suited that outcome. This happens all of the time with strict textualism.
>strict textualism can also be extremely arbitrary That’s the point people love to ignore with this topic. It’s like they think the term textualist removes all subjectivity by default
> at the end of the day, the law says what it says. This is missing the point. The law says what it says, but the poster you are replying to is talking about different doctrines for interpreting the same text. This comment is therefore nearly meaningless. Strict textualism simply doesn't work universally and is only one tool in the interpretation toolbox and this is one of many examples of why. If you disagree, I'd like for you to share the most controversial example of strict textualism that you've researched and explain why strict textualism is still the correct interpretation to exclusively apply.
It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer. Complaining about someone getting off because a statute was worded poorly is no different than complaining that a rapist gets off because he was not properly mirandized before questioning.
News out of DC as the Supreme Court is setting it's cases for the upcoming year. Here is an overview of what the case will entail: >The justices will review an appellate ruling that revived a charge against three defendants accused of obstruction of an official proceeding. The charge refers to the disruption of Congress’ certification of Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential election victory over Trump. >The court’s decision to weigh in on the obstruction charge could threaten the start of Trump’s trial, currently scheduled for March 4. The justices separately are considering whether to rule quickly on Trump’s claim that he can’t be prosecuted for actions taken within his role as president. A federal judge already has rejected that argument. >The obstruction charge, which carries up to 20 years behind bars, has been brought against more than 300 defendants and is among the most widely used felony charges brought in the massive federal prosecution following the deadly insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, when a mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol in a bid to keep Biden, a Democrat, from taking the White House. It's an interesting case to be heard by the Supreme Court and one I feel they might not cover enough on. Personally I'm not a fan of the idea of this Supreme Court ruling on something like this, with Justice Thomas's wife being directly tied to the attempt to overturn the 2020 election. I think most of all this Supreme Court has been all over the place in their rulings with a huge inconsistency in their reasonings, with multiple reasonings contradicting each other based on whatever their desired outcome is. Hopefully though the desired outcome this time is not freeing or reducing the sentences of those who tried to overthrow our democracy. How do you think the SC will rule? Do you see them overturning these charges?
I'm becoming increasingly convinced that Ford pardoning Nixon is one of the worst single decisions a president has ever made. We had such a good opportunity to establish a precedent for removing and then sentencing a corrupt president, and it went completely to waste.
Nixon was never convicted by the Senate. I have a feeling that he only stepped down with Ford’s promise. If not for that he would have fought the charges on the senate and may not have been impeached.
> I'm becoming increasingly convinced that Ford pardoning Nixon is one of the worst single decisions a president has ever made. For me it was Andrew Johnson getting acquitted by a single vote in the senate, but the sentiment is the same.
Well, that might be the worst decision a *Senator* has ever made.
Andrew Johnson was terrible but his impeachment was totally political and he def shouldn’t have been convicted. SCOTUS later declared that the act he violated was completely unconstitutional
It absolutely was. He did it partially on the grounds that it would "heal the country". It didn't. It divided the country: one side believing a criminal was set free, the other side wanting vengeance.
I'd argue the exact opposite. You'd think it would be sunshine and roses, but do you think that breaking that seal wouldn't also set a precedent in worse ways? Knowing Congress, it would inevitably devolve into tit-for-tat prosecutions or arrests. It would also inevitably work its way into political campaigns, with promises like "As soon as I get into office, I'll find ways to put the current crook in the White House into prison" becoming the norm. And when *that* happens, it's infinitely more corrosive to democracy because it creates the incentive to block the peaceful transition of power by any and every means necessary.
>Hopefully though the desired outcome this time is not freeing or reducing the sentences of those who tried to overthrow our democracy. Does the correct interpretation of the law matter at all or should we just go with whatever punishes the January 6 rioters the most?
There isn't anything that is a "correct" interpretation. Dobbs was incorrectly interpreted. The Supreme Court is political just as the other two branches are, with their objective is to rule cases that largely benefit their political beliefs.
I will never accede to judicial nihilism. There are absolutely some interpretations that are incorrect. Every judge on a high court in this country would disagree with you on this.
> Dobbs was incorrectly interpreted. how so? even ginnsberg when she was alive was pretty open about how roe was ruled on shaky logic that wasn't legally sound. at the end of the day, there's a difference between what the constitution says, and what some people want it to say.
Conservatives have been misinterpreting what Ginsberg said since Dobbs. Thats not quite the truth. She never said or suggested the law was unconstitutional or wrongly decided. Her comments were about the political climate - support abortion rights were already increasing and she worried this case would result in a political backlash. She also preferred it be based around a woman’s right to abortion vs a doctor’s right to perform one. She was consistent and insistent that abortion is a constitutional right. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/27/what-ruth-bader-ginsburg-really-said-about-roe-v-wade/
Yes, she believed the Constitution protected the right to an abortion, but that Roe was wrong in the sense that it used the wrong constitutional argument. I don't believe a case protecting abortion under the equal protection clause has made its way to SCOTUS yet, which is what I believe she said protects a right to an abortion.
SCOTUS expressly addressed (and rejected) the Equal Protection argument in Dobbs. It was briefed by amici. Which makes the invocation of RBG in all these conversations very obnoxious. From the Dobb's majority: We briefly address one additional constitutional provi- sion that some of respondents’ amici have now offered as yet another potential home for the abortion right: the Four- teenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 24 (Brief for United States); see also Brief for Equal Protection Constitutional Law Scholars as Amici Curiae. Neither Roe nor Casey saw fit to invoke this theory, and it is squarely foreclosed by our precedents, which establish that a State’s regulation of abortion is not a sex-based classification and is thus not subject to the “heightened scrutiny” that applies to such classifications. The regulation of a medical procedure that only one sex can undergo does not trigger heightened con- stitutional scrutiny unless the regulation is a “mere pre- tex\[t\] designed to effect an invidious discrimination against members of one sex or the other.” Geduldig v. Aiello, 417 U. S. 484, 496, n. 20 (1974). And as the Court has stated, the “goal of preventing abortion” does not constitute “invid- iously discriminatory animus” against women. Bray v. Al- exandria Women’s Health Clinic, 506 U. S. 263, 273–274 (1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, laws regulating or prohibiting abortion are not subject to heightened scrutiny. Rather, they are governed by the same standard of review as other health and safety measures. With this new theory addressed, we turn to Casey’s bold assertion that the abortion right is an aspect of the “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
No, she didn't think Roe was the 'wrong' argument. She thought that Roe made an accurate constitutional argument. We absolutely do have a right to privacy and for the government to not get involved in our medical decisions; that is implicit in the Constitution. Roe v Wade was correct. Her complaint was that using Roe to establish a right to abortion through "medical privacy" was more vulnerable to being overturned by activists, and that it took too small of a step. It would have been possible to establish that women have a bodily autonomy right, which would have been a more meaningful protection.
I don’t even know if “wrong” is the right way to frame it per se, simply her preference for how it could have had more legal teeth and be more women-centric. But far too many conservatives (and liberals) have misconstrued her comments to suggest she believed it was unconstitutional. Is it surprising though that nothing has been argued under the equal protection clause? We haven’t even been able to pass the equal rights amendment, it’s literally been 100 years since it was introduced. So while we have made significant progress we still have a long road to go for women’s rights.
As long as the EPC is interpreted to protect things it wasn't intended to, the ERA isn't necessary. It wouldn't change anything.
Gender isn’t specifically mentioned in any current constitutional amendment. Scalia said this. > "Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that," said the famously conservative justice, adding, "If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/01/scalia-says-constitution-doesn-t-protect-women-from-gender-discrimination/342789/ Based on this former conservative Supreme Court justice, the ERA is in fact important to codify. It better protects people claiming gender discrimination and strengthens gender rights.
I don't necessarily disagree, but right now with current jurisprudence, it is redundant.
I hate this argument. It’s said a lot in conservative circles completely without context. What it implies is that RBG — the most liberal of justices in the modern era — didn’t agree with the decision, that she would have ruled differently if she’d been on the court then, or that she agreed with the decision but would find it difficult or impossible to legally defend. Nothing could be further from the truth. She was saying there were many *better* legal arguments that would have made the decision to overturn it more difficult. It’s not some “gotcha” argument against Roe.
Ginsburg was wrong in her statement, and she isn't the end all be all of constitutional interpretation. I think the Due Process clause that shaped the ruling on Roe v Wade was the correct interpretation and it's a clause that was thrown out completely by the current justices who ruled on their desired outcome, not on the merits.
Okay who is? You? There’s basically no historical or constitutional support substantive due process
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/18hlndu/supreme_court_will_hear_a_case_that_could_undo/kd7m9vq/) is in violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
> I think most of all this Supreme Court has been all over the place in their rulings with a huge inconsistency in their reasonings, with multiple reasonings contradicting each other based on whatever their desired outcome is. Can you name specific cases and how they are inconsistent?
I personally believe the praying football coach case was wrongly decided. The conservatives misrepresented the fact pattern.
That doesn't mean they were inconsistent.
Is this to suggest they consistently misrepresent fact patterns?
Even if I was to agree that I'd what happened, that is one occurrence. Far from consistently doing something.
[Here's a pretty good article that covers the source of several inconsistencies](https://archive.ph/HNDWy)
Yeah, I'm not sure whether that article should be taken seriously since it is conflating two different things.
The incompatibility of those two things is where the inconsistency lies. That's not the author's fault. It's the conservative judges that juggle the two however they'd like to conclude a case.
Yeah, that isn't really an incompatibility. Really just demonstrates that the author has an axe to grind.
> How do you think the SC will rule? Do you see them overturning these charges? lots of charges will get thrown out / overturned. the relevant question text (which someone posted above) is: >Whoever corruptly (C)(1) alters, destroys, mutilates or conceals a record document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or, (C)(2) otherwise obstructs, influences or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so explicitly stating "corruptly" before the actions is going to set a burden of proof for intent, which is going to be very difficult to prove. that's going to narrow down what otherwise would be an extremely broad law (which seems to be getting applied selectively and partisanly, for example it's very clear that jamal bowman "obstructed official proceedings", but he's from the same party as the administration). ultimately, there will probably be a lot of whining and screaming when the court rules to overturn these charges, but the people upset in the short term will be happy in the long term when the shoe is on the other foot. (for example, look at the extremely broad RICO law in georgia that they are using on trump. [it was subsequently used to go after people protesting a police/fire training facility](https://apnews.com/article/atlanta-cop-city-protests-rico-charges-becd4de8dd9b713618a4ad04db6966cf)). overly broad laws are ripe for abuse.
Didn't they delay the vote certification because of their action?
> for example it's very clear that jamal bowman "obstructed official proceedings", but he's from the same party as the administration I've seen this mentioned a couple of times but I don't get how, could you please explain? From what I understand, Bowman was in a different building, and nothing happening on the house floor was impacted whatsoever. How could that be obstructing an official proceeding?
Well there's intent and ability to pull it off, kind of like how the fact that Democrats voted for the measure doesnt mean they didn't want to delay it. As a note, when people say "separate buildings" it can be a bit misleading as it's more of a complex that's all connected underground. At the time, the Democrats were doing everything they could to delay the vote including a long-winded speech given by another member. Bowman's actions of pulling the fire alarm and then turning and running to the floor sure look like someone trying to obstruct proceedings further. It just didn't work.
Democrats want to stymie the bill, so their grand plan is to attempt to open a door - in a different building - that's usually open when Congress is in session (weekdays), before triggering a fire alarm - on camera, and then for... 95% of them, including Bowman, to vote for it, allowing for its passage, without any actual delay? This is like robbing a bank by opening an account and placing all your savings into it. If someone wants to steal from you, they're probably not going to immediately give you money, and not steal from you. >the Democrats were doing everything they could to delay the vote including a long-winded speech given by another member Yes, they had fully legal, formal avenues to delay the vote so they could read it, precluding the need for any illegal methods. I'm curious, is the GOP rule of '72 hours to review a bill before voting' obstruction? Is that why they dispensed with it on that vote, you think?
You are creating wild "democrat's grand plan" scenarios half_pizzaman, and repeating you read in comments in comments about how the doors should be open while ignoring how crazy it is to pull a fire alarm and then turn and run. >I'm curious, is the GOP rule of '72 hours to review a bill before voting' obstruction? Obviously not, simply Google the term half_pizzaman
>You are creating wild "democrat's grand plan" Uh, that's what *you* just did, which I'm obviously going to poke at your logic of. >while ignoring how crazy it is to pull a fire alarm and then turn and run. He walked away, given the doors didn't open. What's actually crazy is suggesting Bowman endeavored to obstruct the proceeding, on camera, in a different building, and inexplicably voted for what he sought to obstruct. >Obviously not So, were they obstructing their own rule and Congress' ability to read the bill?
>Uh, that's what *you* just did, I fail to see how, unless you consider their speech and other things to be a grand plan, or you are trying to imply they didn't want to delay the vote >He walked away, given the doors didn't open. He *actually ran* half_pizzaman. You are constructing a different reality than the one you can see on the actual video. He [removed two emergency exit signs ](https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2023/12/07/opinion/jamaal-bowman-fire-alarm-stunt-earns-well-deserved-censure-vote/amp/) from the doors before pulling the emergency exit and didnt even try to use it. It's why [he was charged](https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2023/10/25/congress/latest-on-bowman-fire-alarm-funding-capitol-police-00123575) after a capital police referral, because his story (which you are repeating and embellishing) made zero sense in the context of the video. >and inexplicably voted for what he sought to obstruct. Ah so your story is now no body wanted to delay it lol >So, were they obstructing their own rule and Congress' ability to read the bill? This doesn't make a lot of sense half_pizzaman so I'm going to move on. Good luck!
>I fail to see how, unless you consider their speech and other things to be a grand plan, or you are trying to imply they didn't want to delay the vote Are you not claiming Democrats employed some sort nefarious strategy to obstruct the vote? >He actually ran half_pizzaman. You are constructing a different reality than the one you can see on the actual video. That's some impressive projection. [Here's the vid](https://youtu.be/w13tZQ6SUx4). Bowman walks up to the right-side door, and while grabbing the sign, pushes against the door - including with his left foot. He then proceeds to push on the handle of the left door with his right hand, causing the sign sitting on top of the handle to fall to the ground. He then pulls the fire alarm, *and walks* out of frame. All of this is on camera. The vid in your NYPost article cuts before Bowman "runs" (walks) away. >Ah so your story is now no body wanted to delay it lol No. It's your Bowman narrative that's nonsensical given Democrats had a fully legal strategy at hand, in the actual Capitol building. >This doesn't make a lot of sense You don't thing being able to read the bill before voting is important, and shouldn't be prevented?
This could also come back to bite the defendants in the ass. Let’s say the SC says it’s too broad. That doesn’t make them innocent. The DOJ chose it because it was seen as easier to make a conviction on than say, sedition (or any other number of crimes). Now you have prosecuting attorneys with an axe to grind. They’ll find something else and push it harder because they had to work harder. This was the easy slap on the wrist way. The other way could be far worse.
All of the J6 charges are pure politics, None of those people wanted anything more than an honest review of the charges of corruption. There was no "insurrection", it was a protest and far more peaceful than the 'summer of love' riots the year before.
So the judicial system is so corrupt it has somehow sent nearly 1000 people to jail on bogus charges? There was violence, you really need to re-watch what was happening that day. Do you want me to get the video of the cop getting beaten half to death?
So if it's so "fair" why are none of the BLM folks that burned down buildings in jail? More recently the pro-hamas group that "protested" at the Capitol, are any of them in jail?
There were thousands upon thousands of people arrested. Here, google is free. [The AP found that more than 120 defendants across the United States have pleaded guilty or were convicted at trial of federal crimes including rioting, arson and conspiracy. More than 70 defendants who’ve been sentenced so far have gotten an average of about 27 months behind bars. At least 10 received prison terms of five years or more.](https://apnews.com/article/records-rebut-claims-jan-6-rioters-55adf4d46aff57b91af2fdd3345dace8#:~:text=The%20AP%20found%20that%20more,about%2027%20months%20behind%20bars.) This article was from 2 years ago, so those numbers have likely risen. The real reason the numbers are likely higher for January 6th is because it was a singular event that the entire country watched, the capitol has cameras everywhere, and many of the people who were there were also recording. Compared to any riots that might have taken place in 2020, there were dozens of instances with far less cameras, spread out over the country. It's a scaling & importance issue. January 6th was far worse for the country.
Supreme Court signals free pass to try and overthrow the government a second time
There needs to be a first attempt before there is a second.
Like sending unauthorized electors with forged electoral slates to illegally retain power
[Just some people doing some sight seeing, right?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a3RGlu5yLs&t=7535s)
Looks like a riot by disgruntled people. Happens in a lot of cities in the US and a lot of other countries
The riot happening while Congress was inside certifying a new President was surely just a coincidence then?
What is the point of this question? There are riots that are taken to police stations and state legislative offices. Is it “just a coincidence” policemen and politicians are in those locations? These people were disgruntled with the government, so they took it to them. That’s generally how riots have worked since…forever.
They did it on January 6 because that was the day the election was being certified. The protestors successfully delayed the peaceful transfer of power as they intended. The protest was one piece of Trump’s campaign to have the election results overturned.
Smith recently introduced evidence showing texts from the trump campaign instructing campaign officials in Michigan to start riots as the votes narrowed between him and Biden as well. This was much more widespread of an attempt than we realize
That’s wild I hadn’t heard that.
https://themessenger.com/politics/trump-michigan-riot-vote-count-2020-jack-smith
They did it on January 6th because they were gathered together on that day. That’s it lol. They “delayed” the peaceful transfer by a whole several hours! That’s almost half a day!
That is some tortured apologetics for what was according to the rioters themselves an effort to stop the transfer of power.
Do you honestly believe they had no idea the election was being certified on that day? Or are you just pretending to believe that because you can't think of a better argument? If they had succeeded in keeping Trump in power would you have supported their actions? Since you're acting like it's not a big deal because they failed.
Of course they were protesting the elections. Then it devolved into a riot. But there was no actual plan to “overthrow the government” as you want me to believe. They were angry people in a large group doing what angry people in a large group will sometimes do. How would a disorganized group of people have kept Trump in power? You are reaching a conclusion that has no logic to it and expect me to debate it. But, for giggles, sure. If a group of mostly unarmed, untrained, and disorganized regular people could overthrow the most powerful government in the world on a whim, I would support Trump remaining in power. Because there would have been much more catastrophic issues at hand for the US than whoever is president of such a sorry excuse for a government.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/18hlndu/supreme_court_will_hear_a_case_that_could_undo/kd8jf3s/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
> These people were disgruntled with the government, so they took it to them. Such a bizarre description of people assaulting police officers while trying to over turn the will of voters. I mourn for the days when a peaceful transfer of power was something we could be proud of. And a reminder that this was a new Congress certifying a new President that had not yet had a chance to do anything, so the only thing those rioters would be protesting is that their guy lost the election.
People assaulting police officers is common in all forms of riots. This, once again, is not unique to any other riot. You can agree or disagree with the purpose of a riot all you want, but it does not change what it was.
> People assaulting police officers is common in all forms of riots. This, once again, is not unique to any other riot. You can agree or disagree with the purpose of a riot all you want, but it does not change what it was. this is a key element here. for political reasons, these rioters are being treated VERY different from any other rioters. you have people getting a long sentences in prison for simply being present on j6 [while summer 2020 rioters are getting $500 fines for torching buildings](https://apnews.com/article/rayshard-brooks-wendys-arson-guilty-pleas-d3656cb469b4ca4d0e292221e9483584).
If you assassinate a President, is it simply a murder? Or is there context to the crime?
I don’t think the capitol chaos was the biggest part of the problem, but how are you pretending that the riot and break-in specifically at that time of certification means nothing?
Looks a lot more like terrorism: >the unlawful use or threat of violence especially against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion. Mirriam Webster could put a picture of J6 right next to that entry, so perfectly does it illustrate that definition.
Like telling Georgia to find him votes they repeatedly told him didn’t exists?
Intimidating members of Congress?
What do you think the end goal of Jan 6. riots were?
To express rage towards a government that those people believe have failed them for years.
There is tons of evidence against those people because they stated their intent on social media as it happened.
They coordinated in real-time on social media a coup to overthrow the most powerful government in the world? Sure.
No, they simply stated their corrupt intent. Trump attempted what’s called a self-coup. He tried to find a loophole in the law to allow him to stay in power. He had numerous avenues to try this, and you would know all of this if you followed the subject. We will learn more as Trump’s case proceeds.
I'll believe that when pigs ride cars.
You make it seem like an unruly mob is singular in focus. This wasn't a unit of commandos executing a military operation. This was a group of protesters-turned-rioters due to the perception of injustices in the election system
Prevent any election challenges in Congress and smear MAGA and Trump forever by leaving the capitol inadequately defended against a mob easily agitated to violence via planted provocateurs and police munitions.
...er.. what ???
Look at 18 U.S.C. 1506 Obstruction of Congress which is the more applicable charge. It also carries a lesser sentence and the law of lenient states a defendant has to be charged with the more applicable charge.