So if an armed and violent group were to break down the doors and windows of the Supreme Court while it was in session with the announced intent to disrupt their proceedings and possibly commit bodily harm to the justices and their staff and personnel, that’s all cool?
That just sounds like a peaceful tour to me.
You'd have a point if the Trumpist right were at all concerned with principle, logic or integrity. Fascists use a veneer of words and argument only as a distraction and to buy time while they seize power for themselves. So yes, they'd be in an indefensible position, but in the end that doesn't matter because they have no serious interest in defending it.
Oh no, not if it happens to them. Then it would be a coup.
...until it is done.
Me: Is that a DOOM reference?
/sees username
Me: *Nice. *
😎👉👉 👿
Since the Supreme Court agreed last month to take the case, Fischer v. US, more than a dozen January 6 defendants have already asked judges to halt their upcoming sentencings and trials. While some judges have balked, others have agreed to delays for the rioters in a handful of cases.
You can't just say "some judges" in the era of trump appointed judges, it's relevant context and 9/10 times these articles omit that key distinction.
That's CNN for you. Sell you outrage without the full story
CNN isn't special, but this is in NO way limited to them
Honestly, if the Tribunal of Six decides the wrong way on this… I think there might be riots. And they’d be justified.
You severely underestimate the level of apathy in this country when it comes to actually taking action. If it requires them to step away from being keyboard warriors, most people in this country want no part of it.
If they rule the wrong way on this, they're granting rioters permission.
LOL this country is a fucking joke.
Jokes are usually more clever 🤣
Of fucking course they are.
Why buy jurists if you're not going to use them?
So the leader of a violent coup attempt is given a lenient punishment by a sympathetic judiciary?
Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.
Yes, the Mullahs want to keep their enforcers out of prison. I'm not surprised.
I don't get it, how would Congressional proceedings not be federal proceedings?
The article does a poor job of communicating what the case is about.
The questions presented: "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?"[1]
I know, I know. We're talking about Trump and his lawyers here, which means nothing makes sense by default.
But wouldn't the counting of the votes be a congressional inquiry? I mean it's literally answering the question of "Who won the election?".
Can we go back to the days where a sane Supreme Court would have laughed this entire argument out of the room?
I would not call any supreme court "sane" but there was a period where there were some basic standards.
Semantics.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
If the challenge is successful, the Supreme Court could potentially wipe away two of the four counts that special counsel Jack Smith has brought against the former president in his federal election interference case, and upend felony convictions for dozens of January 6 rioters.
The former president’s lawyers plan to make challenges in his case around the obstruction law if it returns to the trial judge before the Supreme Court rules, a source has told CNN.
The special counsel’s office has already argued that appeals over the obstruction charge shouldn’t affect Trump, because his alleged crimes included falsifying electoral vote certificates and sending them to Congress, according to a previous court filing.
Several defense attorneys representing January 6 rioters are deciding whether to ask for relief in the DC District Court, while some have already attempted to pause upcoming trials or sentencings, according to people familiar with their strategies.
A Trump supporter who had traveled from Texas for the January 6 rally in Washington, DC, Harkrider had argued his case was directly affected because he said the primary felony charge he faced was obstruction.
Rioters accused of violence toward police — those more likely to be awaiting their trials and sentencings in jail — are less likely to be affected significantly by the Supreme Court’s obstruction ruling, because of the seriousness of assault charges.
The original article contains 1,213 words, the summary contains 224 words. Saved 82%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News