If the election goes as well as we can reasonably hope, it might be possible to fix the Supreme Court situation. The biggest obstacle is the Democrats actually taking the W and doing what people want instead of waving their arms and panicking because they’ve won.
Well, for starters, the Supreme Court protestors, as near as I can tell, aren’t breaking down windows and doors trying to get in, beating people with flagpoles, carrying zip ties with which to kidnap and detain justices, setting up gallows, or chanting “Hang Clarence Thomas.” (There’s an uncomfortable image if I ever saw one.)
For all the people who upvoted this and clearly didn’t read the article. . .let me quote the relevant part:
Alito acknowledged, “What happened on January 6 was very, very serious, and I’m not equating this with that.” But, he continued, “We need to find out what are the outer reaches of this statute under your interpretation.”
It’s like 200 words into the article.
Seems like it would be pretty typical to see how wide a net prosecutors are casting with their interpretation. He’s clearly not saying nor suggesting that they should be charged, only asking if they would be charged under their current interpretation.
More specifically the question is, does the statute in question apply to people preventing a government procedure from occurring? Previously the statute has been used to prosecute folks who tamper with evidence. They’re quibbling over the wording and whether storming a proceeding is also covered.
It’s seems fairly obvious to me that January 6th rioters wanted to stop the proceedings in a way that protestors of the supreme court do not. It also seems obvious that the government wouldn’t want citizens to be able to legally prevent it’s basic proceedings from occurring.
Also worth saying the defendant ran at a police line yelling “charge”
Because only one of those groups were patsies led by a handful of traitors to our country in a plot to overthrow our elected government. And it wasn’t the Dobbs protesters.
Some of them were and are. Sorry, but I don’t think it’s reasonable to claim they were all in on the real plot. That doesn’t mean they weren’t taking part in an insurrection, of course - ignorance is no excuse.
The punishment laid out in their convictions take into account how involved they were in the insurrection. The Supreme Court isn’t taking that into account. Many are getting a simple fine for trespassing, but the ones that went with the intent of causing trouble are getting the actual real punishments.
Fucker wants to know why peaceful protesters who just want their bodily rights aren’t being prosecuted just like hypocritical assholes who say they respect Blue Lives but aren’t averse to killing a cop or two while overthrowing the govt.
These justices can fuck all the way off but this headline is taken out of context.
From the article: Alito acknowledged, “What happened on January 6 was very, very serious, and I’m not equating this with that.” But, he continued, “We need to find out what are the outer reaches of this statute under your interpretation.”
Except even Wikipedia says that is false and that the medical examiner determined natural causes and this was accepted as the cause by Capitol Police. So were the police victims or are they in on it and covering up for Trump? If they are covering up, are the claims true that they led protestors into the building?
If they stormed the Supreme Court and tried to hang a Republican justice I might see the parallel. I’d be silently wishing them godspeed, but I’d at least admit the justices had a fair point.
Damn, one of those protesters got shot after trying to go through the barricade setup because they got into the building like J6? The protesters literally just got signs out and were yelling in front of the building. May these illegitimate fucks die soon. Kavanaugh cant get cirrhosis fast enough.
This idiot glossing over the fact that the Jan 6th traitors not only attempted to capture congress to kill them and the vice president but also shit in their hands and smeared it on the capital walls?
Medical examiners are one step removed from cops (as in they work with cops a lot and a lot of them are ridiculously unqualified political hires) so yeah, it would be stupid to trust them in any even slightly contentious circumstances.
Determined by a possibly unqualified examiner who might have political reasons to come to that conclusion rather than medical ones? Has this determination been independently verified?
Medical examiners determined that it wasn’t blunt force trauma, so now the only other explanation was pepper spray… so, do you really think pepper spray is what killed him? Or do you think that there were a lot of officers there, and people die daily, and he happened to die after the events but that weren’t directly connected or there was no evidence of a connection? Is it possible you want him to have died because of Jan 6 events so that you can point your finger and say look how evil those Jan 6 people were?
Multiple cops were beaten that day. Do you suppose the insurrectionists were holding back? They were obviously trying to kill police, on camera. We all saw what happened. You’re making excuses for them. You’re whatabouting for them.
No I’m not. I don’t disagree some of them were there for that purpose. If they had a gun, plans, texts, etc that shows that was their intention to basically harm those certifying the election then sure charge them with the federal law the article is talking about. But just cause they went into the Capitol building doesn’t mean they all had the same intentions.
That’s not how prosecution and evidence works. You can’t just say cause they entered the Capitol building that they were all their to hang Pence, or kill Pelosi. You need actual evidence. Otherwise, what will happen is that you’ll go to a peaceful protest and some agitator will do some crime and suddenly you’ll be getting arrested saying you were there for the same purpose.
Yeah, the way it works is that a bunch of inbred hayseeds try to install Trump as dictator, and because you wish they had succeeded, you downplay what they did and pretend that the Supreme Court still has legitimacy.
The Supreme Court hasn’t had much legitimacy for much longer than you realize. They’ve been taking away consumer and workers rights for decades. You just haven’t realized it until recently when it has become a hot topic and now it is easier to blame Republicans, but overlook everything else.
You just haven’t realized it until recently when it has become a hot topic and now it is easier to blame Republicans, but overlook everything else.
They’ve been more shameless about it. As in this case, where they’re pretending that obstructing a government proceeding applies only to documents, and where you’re pretending that anything other than ignoring the statute entirely requires enshrining guilt by association into law.
I’m not sure how or whether you gather that they are pretending that obstructing a government proceeding only applies to documents, but that isn’t what I gathered at all. I made two major points…
That if they didn’t question the law, then it would likely apply to Jamaal Bowman and other protests (many of those by Democrat activists)
That doing so was dangerous as it sets a basis for charging everyone with the same crime regardless of evidence of their actual intended purpose.
His attorney argues that Congress intended the obstruction law to apply only to instances where defendants tampered with physical evidence, such as destroying or forging documents used in proceedings.
The court is sympathetic to this bullshit argument. Since it’s not demonizing black people, you ignored it.
Have a good pipedream
Expecting you to quit whatabouting for Trump’s inbred violent minions is a bit of an unrealistic expectation, yes.
Where do you gather that the court is sympathetic to the argument? The justices are literally questioning the other components of the same law which clearly involves more than documents. The justices do not indicate that they believe it only pertains to destroying/tampering with documents, and I have no clue how you could gather that from the article.
Because they want to limit the scope of the law to documents only. Why would they question the part of the law they want to keep?
The part of the law they are questioning has to do with actual actions/violence to prevent official proceedings. They are questioning the scope of the other parts, not saying that they intend to exclude it entirely. They can’t make up new laws. They can only interpret them. Yes, they can have poor interpretations, but they’d seriously struggle trying to exclude things entirely without having uproar throughout the federal court system which comprises of several liberal judges as well.
If you spread false information, even if it’s in the name of a good cause, you will make it harder for people to believe you or people supporting your good cause when you talk about true information. There’s enough issues with conservatives that you don’t need to invent more like a conspiracy theorist.
No, it is because like I said the Supreme Court did ask some valid questions… there are plenty of laws that the people on Jan. 6 broke, but the one in particular that they are using could equally be applied to protesters that have also disrupted official proceedings. If the police have evidence that all the people that went into the capitol were there with a plan to assassinate and specifically harm members of congress, then yes I think that they should qualify under this law. But, merely going into the capitol building is not sufficient evidence in of itself. I’m just saying, be careful what you wish for and don’t be surprised if suddenly climate activists and other Democrat protesters don’t get charged with the same thing once you do.
I’m just saying, be careful what you wish for and don’t be surprised if suddenly climate activists and other Democrat protesters don’t get charged with the same thing once you do.
They already get charged. The insurrectionists were treated with kid gloves and are to this day.
Being charged with a crime is not the same as being convicted though, and currently the challenge before the Supreme Court is in regards to what crimes they can be convicted with. It isn’t an easy subject and I agree the Supreme Court is biased and corrupt, but I also try my best to evaluate the case law and I still believe that they asked some good questions about when it is okay to charge someone with this particular crime when it appears that it could apply to Democrat protesters in several cases as well that were not charged. Not only that, but you get a few corrupt cops and next thing you know they claim that some peaceful protester outside the capital building assaulted them, then they could claim all peaceful protesters there intended to be violent and charge them all with 20 to 30 years under 18 U.S. Code § 1512. Heck, even impeding traffic under 18 U.S. Code § 1512 could be argued to prevent communication to a judge.
Being charged with a crime is not the same as being convicted though, and currently the challenge before the Supreme Court is in regards to what crimes they can be convicted with.
Later in this thread you conflate the insurrectionists with BLM. You’ve been downplaying the insurrection this entire thread. They beat police officers mercilessly multiple times, on camera. We all saw what happened. The medical examiner said that Sicknick died for reasons unrelated to the injuries he sustained at the hands of your favorite people, but it’s not like they weren’t fucking trying to beat him to death.
You really do take everything out of context for your own agenda don’t you? I didn’t conflate the people on Jan 6 to BLM. My only point was do you want all people in an area or vicinity getting charged with the same thing that a select few of a group may only be guilty of. Do you not agree that for each defendant in a case, that evidence needs to be presented to show specifically what crimes they were trying to commit… or, do you think that if people are in an area where a few protesters throw a molotov cocktail that everyone else even when they were never there with the intention of starting a fire should all be charged with the same crime? You can twist my words all you want, and I’m sure you’d love to have mod or are reporting this to mods cause heck people like you definitely don’t like it when people point out their inconsistencies and call them out for actually being the propaganda while making claims about people like me.
You say these people are my “favorite people” but you have no evidence, and I can assure you they aren’t, but you really don’t care. It is all about the false narrative you wish to push. It sounds to me like you don’t care how Sicknick actually died, but that you’ll gladly use his death in whatever narrative is most convenient for you.
Lol… I do like your point. However, it seems like what they are saying is that you have to prove they intended harm on those conducting official proceedings. Attacking a police officer is good evidence, but it doesn’t necessarily show an intent to harm those conducting the proceeding.
So you’re telling me the BLM protestors breaking windows, trying to set fires and throwing rocks at police wanted to set the whole city on fire and kill all the police? And so when it came to their charges, they just got let go? Like c’mon… Are you even going to talk about this from a legitimate perspective, cause otherwise you’re just helping the Jan 6 attackers by being ficticios.
This guy is going full reddit here. Comparing BLM to the insurrection, acting like they’re the same, and downplaying the insurrection.
I notice that the centrists who call everyone who doesn’t worship Biden’s support for genocide a Trump supporter are silent here.
This is what "both sides"ing actually looks like. This is what Trump support actually looks like. Centrists don’t care in this case because they only oppose those to their left.
You are so far from reality… If you call yourself a Democrat and Democrats are supposed to be educated, then Trump will certainly win and it will be your fault and people that circle jerk the same kind of reactionary non-educated and emotionally challenged ideas you spread. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that in the end the Russian trolls aren’t laughing right now at how easy it is to manipulate some American democrats by just targeting their emotions and feelings when they won’t do any basic research beyond on how they feel.
No where did I try to equate the two. Laws are indifferent to your feelings of when violence and crime are justified. My point was that some BLM protesters doings something doesn’t mean that they are guilty of it. In fact, my argument was in support of peaceful protesters. The only way you could be offended is if you are in fact a violent protester who is upset that violence isn’t allowed when it makes you feel good.
“The only way you could be offended…” lmfao. Get off your high horse bud. And no your arguments are not about peaceful protest but you already know this.
it seems like what they are saying is that you have to prove they intended harm on those conducting official proceedings.
Uh huh.
So I guess breaking into Congress when it was closed to the public because of COVID, on the day Congress was meeting to certify the winner of an election Trump and his supporters refused to acknowledge he lost, bringing zip tie handcuffs, building a fucking gallows out front, chanting “Hang Mike Pence!”, having guns on the Capitol grounds and stashed around DC, and literally beating the officers who were there to protect Congress, doesn’t mean Trump supporters were there with “intention to harm?”
Yep, sounds exactly the same as being angry about America’s still-extant racism which allows Black men to be murdered by cops to me!
According to your logic, during a BLM protest where people start rioting and breaking into shops that means all the protesters in the area had an intention of committing the same crimes. Do you really want cops charging everyone in a public area with the same crime? Do you want them locking up journalists and people there peacefully cause some people in their vicinity had some lighters, cloth and alcohol bottles? The whole point of trial is to prove someones guilt and for that you need evidence of what crime they were planning to commit.
They might have been. The whole point was the article which discusses whether to charge them with a specific crime that requires a specific intent, and I said you need evidence against each defendant for that… and the fringe antifa left came out and said, no… charge them all cause everyone that entered the Capitol building was there to hang pence. Several of them claimed several officers died, and then were to ashamed to admit that all public reports including Wikipedia said no officers died.
IMO many of these commenters are just as bad as the right-wingers who don’t deal in facts. They are just as gullible to misinformation and don’t care about real facts or evidence.
Did you even read the story that I was responding to, you know the specific crime that the Supreme Court was looking at. They weren’t looking to see if trespassing was illegal, nor did I ever say they shouldn’t be charged with trespassing nor of entering a government building without permission. I was talking about whether the protesters should all be treated like they were their to kill representatives certifying the votes even without evidence that was all their intentions. Sure, some may have been there for that purpose, but does that meant that everyone that entered into the capitol building was there for that exact same reason?
If so, my point was does that mean that everyone at a BLM protests… even those that were being peaceful, are in an area when someone sets a fire… should be charged with arson? Like, do we want judges saying… oh, they were in the area or in the building when this happened and cause a few were there for a different purpose, it means they were all there for the same purpose. Or do we want courts to evaluate the evidence against each defendant and try to treat people fairly as much as possible?
The only point you seem to make is plugging your ears and talking over and around the actually contextual replies that repeatedly negate your word salad.
Add comment