Looks like the Supreme Court is about to overturn many Jan 6 convictions

[T. A. Gardner]

About 20% of all the Jan 6 convictions to date include one for 'Obstructing an Official Proceeding.' It looks like the Supreme Court--most of the Liberal / Leftist justices included--are highly skeptical of Joke Bribem's use of what could be characterized as 'selective prosecution' on this charge. In doing so, it also exposes just how mendacious Bribem's DOJ has become.

“Would a sit-in that disrupts a trial or access to a federal courthouse qualify [as illegal obstruction]?” Gorsuch asked Biden’s solicitor general, Elizabeth Prelogar. “Would a heckler at today’s audience qualify or a heckler at the State of the Union address? Would pulling a fire alarm before a vote qualify for 20 years in federal prison?”

Prelogar (the Biden administration / DOJ attorney) stumbled throughout the questioning, including when Alito picked up on similar themes. At one point, she said that for a criminal charge under the statute at issue, “we would have to have the evidence of intent.”

Thus it is that in 2020, now-Vice President Kamala Harris advocated a yearlong continuation of the oft-violent post-George Floyd riots while supporting groups that wanted to bail murderers from prison. The Biden Justice Department tries to imprison innocent anti-abortion protesters while letting hundreds of attacks on pro-life centers go unpunished. It targets parents as domestic terrorists while refusing to enforce specific laws against demonstrations at the homes of Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices. Examples of double standards are almost countless.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...selective-prosecution-of-political-opponents/

 

[Yakuda]

About 20% of all the Jan 6 convictions to date include one for 'Obstructing an Official Proceeding.' It looks like the Supreme Court--most of the Liberal / Leftist justices included--are highly skeptical of Joke Bribem's use of what could be characterized as 'selective prosecution' on this charge. In doing so, it also exposes just how mendacious Bribem's DOJ has become.

“Would a sit-in that disrupts a trial or access to a federal courthouse qualify [as illegal obstruction]?” Gorsuch asked Biden’s solicitor general, Elizabeth Prelogar. “Would a heckler at today’s audience qualify or a heckler at the State of the Union address? Would pulling a fire alarm before a vote qualify for 20 years in federal prison?”

Prelogar (the Biden administration / DOJ attorney) stumbled throughout the questioning, including when Alito picked up on similar themes. At one point, she said that for a criminal charge under the statute at issue, “we would have to have the evidence of intent.”

Thus it is that in 2020, now-Vice President Kamala Harris advocated a yearlong continuation of the oft-violent post-George Floyd riots while supporting groups that wanted to bail murderers from prison. The Biden Justice Department tries to imprison innocent anti-abortion protesters while letting hundreds of attacks on pro-life centers go unpunished. It targets parents as domestic terrorists while refusing to enforce specific laws against demonstrations at the homes of Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices. Examples of double standards are almost countless.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...selective-prosecution-of-political-opponents/

But "Orange man bad."

 

[zappasguitar]

About 20% of all the Jan 6 convictions to date include one for 'Obstructing an Official Proceeding.' It looks like the Supreme Court--most of the Liberal / Leftist justices included--are highly skeptical of Joke Bribem's use of what could be characterized as 'selective prosecution' on this charge. In doing so, it also exposes just how mendacious Bribem's DOJ has become.

“Would a sit-in that disrupts a trial or access to a federal courthouse qualify [as illegal obstruction]?” Gorsuch asked Biden’s solicitor general, Elizabeth Prelogar. “Would a heckler at today’s audience qualify or a heckler at the State of the Union address? Would pulling a fire alarm before a vote qualify for 20 years in federal prison?”

Prelogar (the Biden administration / DOJ attorney) stumbled throughout the questioning, including when Alito picked up on similar themes. At one point, she said that for a criminal charge under the statute at issue, “we would have to have the evidence of intent.”

Thus it is that in 2020, now-Vice President Kamala Harris advocated a yearlong continuation of the oft-violent post-George Floyd riots while supporting groups that wanted to bail murderers from prison. The Biden Justice Department tries to imprison innocent anti-abortion protesters while letting hundreds of attacks on pro-life centers go unpunished. It targets parents as domestic terrorists while refusing to enforce specific laws against demonstrations at the homes of Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices. Examples of double standards are almost countless.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...selective-prosecution-of-political-opponents/

Where in the article does it say "It looks like the Supreme Court--most of the Liberal / Leftist justices included--"

The article only cites the comments of TWO of the Supreme Court Justices...where might I find any comment from any of the left-leaning judges that corroborates your claim?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Where in the article does it say "It looks like the Supreme Court--most of the Liberal / Leftist justices included--"

The article only cites the comments of TWO of the Supreme Court Justices...where might I find any comment from any of the left-leaning judges that corroborates your claim?

It goes back to what Kagen and then Justice, Ginsburg wrote on a case on the same thing in Yates v. United States

This question divided the justices into three different camps, and not along familiar partisan lines. Justice Elena Kagan, an Obama appointee, wrote a dissent for herself and three of her Republican colleagues, arguing that the term “tangible object” should be given its ordinary meaning: “physical objects,” including fish.

Meanwhile, liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the Court’s lead opinion for herself and a bipartisan group of three other justices, arguing that the words accompanying “tangible object,” which deal with records and documents, matter.

According to Ginsburg, a court should “avoid ascribing to one word a meaning so broad that it is inconsistent with its accompanying words,” and thus the term “tangible object” should be read “to refer, not to any tangible object, but specifically to the subset of tangible objects involving records and documents.”
https://www.vox.com/scotus/2024/3/2...6-insurrection-fischer-united-states-obstruct

So, the problem for the current liberal / progressive justices is their side of things is already on record in a previous ruling similar to the one before them and in that ruling they sided with the plaintiff (eg., the Jan 6 protester in this case).