10:50 a.m. Here is the Fischer v. U.S . ruling. 10:49 a.m. The Supreme Court ruled against the government, saying charging the rioters with obstructio

[cigaretteman]

By Washington Post staff
Here is the Fischer v. U.S. ruling.



3 min ago
Return to menu

By Washington Post staff
The Supreme Court ruled against the government, saying charging the rioters with obstruction is improper. We’re still reading, but this ruling could also affect Donald Trump’s election-obstruction case. Two of his charges are related to the obstruction statute.


REPORTING FROM THE SUPREME COURT
4 min ago
Return to menu

By Ann Marimow
Supreme Court correspondent
The last ruling of the day is Fischer v. U.S., on whether Jan. 6, 2021, rioters can be charged with obstruction.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/06/28/supreme-court-decisions-rulings-trump-social-media-jan-6/#link-6M76OIL5DZBBBOLZLKEL7BFSSE

 

[CarolinaHawkeye]

We are seeing it right in front of our eyes. Far right wing, anti-American fascists are running our supreme court, and propping up a 3rd world dictator to be our next president. At least two of them belong in a hard times prison along with trump.

 

[Scruddy]

We are seeing it right in front of our eyes. Far right wing, anti-American fascists are running our supreme court, and propping up a 3rd world dictator to be our next president. At least two of them belong in a hard times prison along with trump.

Unhinged take lmfao

 

[Tom Paris]

The country will never recover from this. Yet half of America is too effing stupid to see it or care.

 

[Scruddy]

The country will never recover from this. Yet half of America is too effing stupid to see it or care.

Democrats went overboard on lots of charges. You played yourselves (again).

The fact that the government lied and refused to turn over evidence which would prove defendents innocence didn't help either.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

(c) Whoever corruptly—

(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

(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

How in the fvck does that not apply to storming the Capitol to prevent...well...an official proceeding?

 

[SCHawkFan]

Jackson voted with the majority, Comey-Barrett was one of the dissenters, so this decision was not a straight conservative vs liberal vote.

Jackson has not written an opinion for an April case as of yet, so she may be assigned to the immunity case. Hopefully that one is a loser for Trump.

 

[Scruddy]

 

[RicoSuave102954]

We are seeing it right in front of our eyes. Far right wing, anti-American fascists are running our supreme court, and propping up a 3rd world dictator to be our next president. At least two of them belong in a hard times prison along with trump.

LOL this decision was expected by everyone who took the time to study the issue.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

We are seeing it right in front of our eyes. Far right wing, anti-American fascists are running our supreme court, and propping up a 3rd world dictator to be our next president. At least two of them belong in a hard times prison along with trump.

Jackson is a fascist?


Roberts was joined by four other conservatives and one liberal — Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson — in the majority. The other two liberal justices were joined by conservative Amy Coney Barrett in dissent.

 

[Rifler]

There has been tendency for this administration and it's supporters to overplay their political hand in the judicial arena,.. There will be more of this pull back...

 

[tarheelbybirth]

There has been tendency for this administration and it's supporters to overplay their political hand in the judicial arena,.. There will be more of this pull back...

I expect another dodge since you avoid direct answers but I'd love to see your thoughts on this:

(c) Whoever corruptly—

(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

(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.


Could you describe how storming the Capitol to "obstruct, influence, or impede" the official proceeding to tabulate the EC vote isn't covered by that very clear language?

 

[lucas80]

There has been tendency for this administration and it's supporters to overplay their political hand in the judicial arena,.. There will be more of this pull back...

Ahh, the pro insurrection crowd has shown up. Try doing to City Hall what happened on 1/6 in a small town.

 

[BDE420]

We are seeing it right in front of our eyes. Far right wing, anti-American fascists are running our supreme court, and propping up a 3rd world dictator to be our next president. At least two of them belong in a hard times prison along with trump.

What happened to faith in the justice system? Without it we have nothing? Odd take from a DemoKlan

 

[Rifler]

I expect another dodge since you avoid direct answers but I'd love to see your thoughts on this:

(c) Whoever corruptly—

(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

(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.


Could you describe how storming the Capitol to "obstruct, influence, or impede" the official proceeding to tabulate the EC vote isn't covered by that very clear language?

Have not yet read the ruling, but are they hanging their hat on the physical records, documents or objects aspect?.. I don't honestly know yet...

 

[BDE420]

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Have not yet read the ruling, but are they hanging their hat on the physical records, documents or objects aspect?.. I don't honestly know yet...

And that makes zero sense. c)1) prohibits impeding an official proceeding by altering, destroying, mutilating, or concealing a record, document, or other object.

Then we get "or c)2) otherwise" obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.

So how can that refer to actions that are already prohibited in the previous section? What does "or otherwise" mean if not actions OTHER THAN altering, destroying, mutilating, or concealing a record, document, or other object?

 

[CarolinaHawkeye]

View embedded media

What happened to faith in the justice system? Without it we have nothing? Odd take from a DemoKlan

Do you have a justice system in your country?

 

[BDE420]

Do you have a justice system in your country?

Zing!

 

[Rifler]

Found this from Justice Roberts:

To prove a violation, prosecutors now have to show that the defendant "impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or ... other things used in the proceeding," Roberts wrote.

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

There has been tendency for this administration and it's supporters to overplay their political hand in the judicial arena,.. There will be more of this pull back...

Prosecutorial overreach and overcharging is coming to light in these high profile cases.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Found this from Justice Roberts:

To prove a violation, prosecutors now have to show that the defendant "impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or ... other things used in the proceeding," Roberts wrote.

Square that with this:

What does "or otherwise" mean if not actions OTHER THAN altering, destroying, mutilating, or concealing a record, document, or other object?

The decision is nonsensical.

 

[Rifler]

It's almost like SCOTUS is attempting to go back and interpret specifically what this law was written to address, vs how the law is actually written,... I know the Enron case was primarily about documents..

 

[BelemNole]

It's almost like SCOTUS is attempting to go back and interpret specifically what this law was written to address, vs how the law is actually written,... I know the Enron case was primarily about documents..

It's almost like the SCOTUS is making political decisions and then trying to justify them...

 

[Rifler]

It's almost like the SCOTUS is making political decisions and then trying to justify them...

Based on political lines, I believe the decision was split...

 

[swagsurfer02]

Jackson voted with the majority, Comey-Barrett was one of the dissenters, so this decision was not a straight conservative vs liberal vote.

This is the most interesting portion to me. It wasn’t partisan.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Based on political lines, I believe the decision was split...

I really want to hear what Brown was thinking. Not that it matters...she goes the other wat and it's still 5-4. Maybe she just wanted to be on the winning side for a change.

The interesting part of the whole thing is the law clearly makes what the insurrectionist did a violation of that specific statute but a court that says legislation must be uber-specific decided that they had to impose their own interpretation of what was clearly stated. I really want them to explain what "or otherwise" means to them.

You can't impede "an official proceeding by altering, destroying, mutilating, or concealing a record, document, or other object" nor can you impede "an official proceeding by altering, destroying, mutilating, or concealing a record, document, or other object".

Makes perfect sense, huh?

 

[Rifler]

It does seem overly clear...

 

[SoProudNole]

According to Garland, this decision won’t impact the majority of J6 cases.

 

[Finance85]

I really want to hear what Brown was thinking. Not that it matters...she goes the other wat and it's still 5-4. Maybe she just wanted to be on the winning side for a change.

The interesting part of the whole thing is the law clearly makes what the insurrectionist did a violation of that specific statute but a court that says legislation must be uber-specific decided that they had to impose their own interpretation of what was clearly stated. I really want them to explain what "or otherwise" means to them.

You can't impede "an official proceeding by altering, destroying, mutilating, or concealing a record, document, or other object" nor can you impede "an official proceeding by altering, destroying, mutilating, or concealing a record, document, or other object".

Makes perfect sense, huh?

Don't be lazy. Read about it.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

Based on political lines, I believe the decision was split...

Jackson was with the majority, Barrett in the minority.

Throws a wrench into the talking points so they ignore it.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Don't be lazy. Read about it.

Don't be lazy. Share your thoughts on it.

 

[jdv77]

I would suggest that you read the concurring opinion by Justice Jackson (here is the link to the Supreme Court Opinion).

Let's not turn this into a partisan debate. It is a much narrower question: Was the obstruction provision that was added to target the document destruction by Enron's accounting firm intended to address this type of conduct?

Also, keep in mind that the defendant in this case was charged with 7 criminal counts. This case only involves 1 of the 7 counts. He will proceed to trial on the other 6 counts.

 

[Finance85]

I would suggest that you read the concurring opinion by Justice Jackson (here is the link to the Supreme Court Opinion).

Let's not turn this into a partisan debate. It is a much narrower question: Was the obstruction provision that was added to target the document destruction by Enron's accounting firm intended to address this type of conduct?

Also, keep in mind that the defendant in this case was charged with 7 criminal counts. This case only involves 1 of the 7 counts. He will proceed to trial on the other 6 counts.

The folks constantly complaining about an activist court can be counted on to complain when the court doesn't become activist and stretch a law to get the result they want.

 

[RicoSuave102954]

And that makes zero sense. c)1) prohibits impeding an official proceeding by altering, destroying, mutilating, or concealing a record, document, or other object.

Then we get "or c)2) otherwise" obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.

So how can that refer to actions that are already prohibited in the previous section? What does "or otherwise" mean if not actions OTHER THAN altering, destroying, mutilating, or concealing a record, document, or other object?

I'll rely on the Supreme Court's decision as opposed to your rants any day.