As if Joe Biden’s faltering performance in last night’s debate wasn’t enough, this morning Donald Trump’s Supreme Court banged the gavel down on three cases that are part of the radical right’s assault on government, law and order, and plain old decency and empathy for others less fortunate than the rest of us.
What a way to end the week! Biden did an excellent job this morning in Raleigh, North Carolina! Whatever happens in 4 months, I am still voting for Biden! He knows what he is doing. I would also fire his debate prep people!
I'm seeing way too many posts on Facebook which say in various iterations, I'm still voting for Biden, like there's a choice. These are people I know would have voted for dead serial killer Richard Speck if he were running as a Democrat against Trump. It is a source of tremendous concern to me that so many people need to reaffirm this.
Pray that Biden never again gets caught in public with his teleprompter down. It was up at the Raleigh rally (and presumably for SOTU), not at CNN in Atlanta
1) Hitler is not the greatest example of how to achieve political success. and, according to a book called "Blitzed" by Norman Ohler (a best seller in Germany), Hitler was on a lot more things every day than just amphetamine (which always made ME stammer WORSE), including plenty of Heroin and more than a soupcon of cocaine.
2) TFF is, notoriously, an Adderall freak himself, which is why he needs the diapers. I'm not making this up. when he talked about "Joe's team" trying to tweak the right drug combination, it's because that's what hi people do to him. god knows he lacks the intellectual curiosity to actually READ anything about this stuff. remember his weird sniffly behavior when he was "addressing the nation?" that's the Adderall dripping down the back of his throat.
The United States is getting sicker by the day, not so much by its citizens as the ones who are supposed to be the thinkers, the serious people, the ones who uphold sane laws that protect and serve and keep us all from killing each other on sight with one misplaced sentence, thought or move. Not anymore. If you want to see how bad it is probably going to get, come to Louisiana, where we have a MAGA wannabe governor who has made conceal carry legal without a permit, that's going in about now as the French Quarter is becoming Grand Central for the murder of our tourist guests, who also come with their concealed carrys and many just as nutty as the criminals who are walking beside them down the sidewalk. Caution: Do not bump them, side-eye them or otherwise breathe anything that can be interpreted as an insult to their borderline personality reactions. I feel physically ill. We don't seem to be able to catch a break. What about the good guys winning in the end, you know, like before the end is so final nobody makes it to the next stage. And don't let me get started on our homeless. We have tons of them too. Wait till you see the other things he is pushing through, like you can't ask in Freedom of Information about anything he does while governor.
And the dimmest of the wits, Alito and Thomas, stacking the bribery and crimes laws so they can be part of the plunder side of the game without a wink. It kinda feels like the world is coming to an end.
The S.Ct. has gone off the rails, Roberts has gone from someone who claims, "judges are just here to call balls and strikes," to arrogating power by torturing words to say whatever he policy he wants to advance. In the obstruction case he misreads the statute to require the second clause be qualified by the first, i.e. that obstruction must include altering an official document when the second clause clearly states "or by" obstructing a proceeding. Then in the bribery case the Court again takes a plain statute making bribery or giving something of value a crime and magically says the statute only refers to bribes before the official act, and not a "gratuity" after the official has done what was requested. As Scrooge memorably says in disbelief to Bob Cratchit "I'll retire now to Bedlam."
Their view of what it means to be Catholic (capital C) is far different than what I was taught in 16 years of Catholic education. I survived and dropped much of the bull about organized religion, but the core humanity and decency and service to those less fortunate or able has remained. However,these single issue advocates (pro life…which has nothing to do with life) are uncaring, solipsistic sycophants, out for themselves and their benefactors. We’ve really become a land of tyrants.
What the Catholic clergy were teaching and what they were practicing weren't always the same, or even similar, judging by what I've read—news and fiction—which I must depend on, having been in Catholic churches only for weddings and funerals.
Yes and what about the actual paper ballots (official documents) in the official box which were protected by the congressional staffers - paper which would have been immediately destroyed by the "patriot warriors".
Oh, stop. If we can't catch a break, then let's make our own break. Democrats need to buck up, do the work and win the election. Then we can fix the damage. Chin up - no matter what.
Oh for goodness sakes, you think this is the only comment today? If you want my Onward Soldiers fight the good fight, go to the other places. No way I'm doing anything but voting for Joe Biden, even more so now. I'm not stopping. It's just comments of the moment. And about the Supreme Court. I never mentioned Biden nor was I thinking of that.
Be alert - I don’t want this to be the country we are leaving to our children and grandchildren…it doesn’t have to be this way…let’s get off our keisters and work. Our lives are literally on the line.
We do have to vote, Lucian. But we have to make it count — I have people urging me to vote third party, since they’re so upset about the debate.
We can’t throw away our votes, folks. Please make them count ….. and make them count FOR someone who has a chance to win, and against Trump or any other Republican.
I knew all this but reading it here so succinctly laid out has me sobbing, just like last night’s debate did. I know there’s hope but why do I feel like we’re drowning? VOTE VOTE VOTE!
If someone brought a case saying the 13th Amendment wasnʼt legal, would this court legitimize slavery again (outside of prisons)??? As people like to say, asking for some friends.
Thomas will say it is up to each state, then move to a blue state that would allow mixed marriages, leaving half the country in red states to viciously outlaw it again. Or maybe move into his RV and roam around so he can't be held to be a citizen of any state!
Retire Joe, send T-rump to jail, and vote Rep. Jamie Raskin for President.
A Constitutional Professor for 25 years before serving in Congress, He could rally His former colleagues for laws to ensure the rights We all lost recently.
Rewrite and reshape the Supreme Court. The Constitution gives Congress the right to make laws to restrict the Courts' overreach as shown these past few years.
That's My Solution. We need Hope out here...Damn It !!!
Gee, guess you don't remember what happened with Gene McCarthy. But thanks for trying the same hackneyed garbage. LBJ gave in and handed the election to Nixon. Sure, run Rep. Raskin, that's a good idea. Take a man who is still recovering from cancer treatment and is a powerhouse desperately needed in the House of Representatives and put him in a no win situation. Who even said he would want the job. Whose side are you on?
Not only do I remember…I worked on Gene McCarthy’s campaign inNew York. My 2nd Lt. husband was going to be off to Vietnam within the year, and I was convinced that McCarthy would end that sh**show. He WON the NY primary and at Chicago’s convention, the GREAT STATE OF NEW YORK nominated Hubert H. Humphrey.” WHAT???!!! As a result, the rule was established that delegates had to vote for the primary winner!!! Where is Eugene McCarthy when we need him?
I received an email from a disability advocacy group concerned with the S. Court [nothing supreme about them] decision to knock down Chevron. No, we have to worry about rule-making that affects our Medicaid, public health and housing regs, and the biggie; the ADA; Americans with Disabilities Act. Basically the ADA prohibits discrimination in many areas of life, including employment and public transportation as well as telling state and local gov'ts. how to regulate so as to not discriminate against disabled people. This is a major upheaval and who knows how it will be resolved, but you can bet the courts are completely unprepared to think about human rights for disabled people. They have just shown how little concern they have for human life, in decision about people who are unhoused.
Your recitation of awfulness is why I refuse to clutch my pearls, faint on a couch, etc over one lousy debate. Biden is and will be the candidate. Another Biden term is a chance to fix SCOTUS. No time for dithering. I gotta go. I have get-out-the-vote postcards to write.
I write postcards for three organizations, and they give instructions for mailing dates in my experience so far. I'm finishing a batch of GOTV cards for Postcards to Swing States that we're not supposed to mail until Oct. 17. Postcards to Voters usually wants the cards mailed within a week or so. Depends on the campaign. The other group I write for is Activate America, they also set deadlines. Hope this helps.
Are we going to survive this Supreme Court? Are we going to survive Biden's disastrous performance on the debate stage? Perhaps the best question is this: Are we going to survive?
The debate was a bad night, but those happen and nothing new or different was said by or about either candidate. The Court, on the other hand, is a carefully barbered melange of true believers, crackpots, incompetents and residents of seats that even they have to understand don't belong to them (select all that apply, those are not mutually exclusive) -- and a paralegal -- and she may actually be the least ridiculous of the majority. The damage this court has done, and will continue to do, is terrifying.
That's Barrett, who's got almost as much trial/judicial experience as Aileen Cannon has. Barrett may not be the disaster I have feared: she's shown some signs of actual independence. But she's got a very long way to go.
I am with you on the Chevron case, and still am trying to find out what the actual punishment was in the homeless case, though I agree totally that the reasoning sucks. But I find I have to differ on the obstruction case. I've been commenting more times this morning than trump lied last night, so I'm going to repeat myself here:
"I read Jackson's concurrence on the obstruction case--it surprised me to see her do so. And her concurrence made sense. It relied on legislative history and pointed out the specific thing the statute was aimed at--corporate fraud and doing things that obstructed the investigation of it. Unlike originalism, this is a valid way of analyzing a statute.
This isn't going to "free" anyone who had more than the obstruction count found against them. The "pure" obstruction cases didn't get much in the way of sentencing and many have probably already been released if jailed at all. This wouldn't affect any trespassing charges, misdemeanors though they may be. In fact, the Appellant was actually found guilty on 6 other counts in his J6 case. He's not leaving his punishment behind any time soon.
Jack Smith doesn't seem worried about any damage to his own case. When you get down to the conspiracy to use fake electors and the like, there are undoubtedly plenty of acts regarding documents to hang your hat on and fit the narrowed meaning of the holding."
You may be right, but why does the Court need to resort to researching the legislative history when the statute is clear on it's face? There is no ambiguity there to resolve.
Because it isn’t really clear in the whole context of Sarbanes-Oxley. It seems to me highly unlikely that Congress chose that language with the idea that it would be useful if people stormed the Capitol. Basic interpretation of ANYTHING has to consider the context.
What we really do need is a statute that specifically applies to obstruction of any government function at all, not just those involved in fraud.
If that was literally true the law would never evolve to apply to changing issues. I'm not an expert in statutory construction, but it appears most judges aren't either considering all the differing opinions that have been issued.
Let’s just say that courts look at legislative history all the time, to either uphold or overturn a statute. It hasn’t really stopped the evolution of law.
Yes, when a statute is ambiguous, but I have to go with ACB here where she says "statutes often go further than the problem that inspired them," and goes on to hold that they then stick with the wording itself. Here the statute was clear and I can't agree that the Court should have substituted it's own MAGA view to hold that insurrectionists can freely storm the capital.
Would you feel the same if the statue was part of, say, the tax code? Or (on a state level) pulled from the laws governing probate?
In any event, the the actual statute involved is 18 U.S. Code § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant. That's not what was going on on January 6.
We didn't HAVE a statute that dealt with the kind of obstruction that happened, overall, on January 6 because no one ever thought it WOULD happened. Now we need one.
My main feeling is that because of this decision it doesn't follow that people are "allowed to freely storm the Capitol." Apparently NO ONE was convicted at trial SOLELY on the statute itself--a total of 25 people pleaded guilty to that section and no other. Those folks will get off, even if the guilty plea was a bargain that dismissed other claims. But overall use of the statute was an added charge in a string of other serious charges. And according to DOJ it was just charged in 350 cases anyway, none of them solely on that basis. News stories that hundreds will be released are bunk. Appellant himself is charged with SIX other serious charges and if convicted not going anywhere soon.
PS: weird Substack quirk. I have NO idea why the reference to the statute has a line break where it does. I've even tried to change it to just "the statute" and the stupid line-break citation keeps returning
In a perfect world Supreme Court Justices would be chose from the best legal scholars in the county as well as the best expert on constitutional law. They would not be chosen based on political affiliation at all. but be thoroughly vetted by a panel of their peers, as well as undergo a character analysis with psychological tests. and a review of all past legal decisions.
Lastly a review of charitable work or donations (to homeless shelters perhaps :) that would show empathy for the common man (and woman). (Hey, imagine if legislators and presidential candidates were chosen along these lines too?).
Our justices are about as far away from being homeless as the distance from here to the moon, But I am reminded of Charles Dickens' Christmas Carol, how Scrooge was transformed.
Regarding the obstruction case. Remember when the Jan 6 committee subpoena document from the Trump administration and they simply ignored the subpoenas? How would that fare under this new law. And what if Biden wins again and instead of a violent insurrection, all the Republicans brought drums and Trumpets into the chamber and made an ungodly racker as the . Electoral College votes were counted? No documents altered or destroyed, but no audible record of the count? Would this not be obstruction of an official proceeding?
My dear late dad told me to never drive when I was tired or sleepy. In my minivan I could park in a safe lighted rest area and take a brief nap in back with yes, a pillow and blanket that I kept there.
Mr Balls & Strikes this morning they referred to Roberts as a "moderate". The court is 2 centuries behind , and my therapist is on vacation. Yesterday on Woodward Ave in Mich I got menaced by a maga in a spanking new black truck with Sir Crime A Lots flags everywhere.
What a way to end the week! Biden did an excellent job this morning in Raleigh, North Carolina! Whatever happens in 4 months, I am still voting for Biden! He knows what he is doing. I would also fire his debate prep people!
I'm seeing way too many posts on Facebook which say in various iterations, I'm still voting for Biden, like there's a choice. These are people I know would have voted for dead serial killer Richard Speck if he were running as a Democrat against Trump. It is a source of tremendous concern to me that so many people need to reaffirm this.
I heard a guy on the news tonight who said, 'I'm voting for Biden even if he's dead'.
Pray that Biden never again gets caught in public with his teleprompter down. It was up at the Raleigh rally (and presumably for SOTU), not at CNN in Atlanta
Biden needs a jolt of amphetamine before each public performance - it worked for Hitler for ten years.
1) Hitler is not the greatest example of how to achieve political success. and, according to a book called "Blitzed" by Norman Ohler (a best seller in Germany), Hitler was on a lot more things every day than just amphetamine (which always made ME stammer WORSE), including plenty of Heroin and more than a soupcon of cocaine.
2) TFF is, notoriously, an Adderall freak himself, which is why he needs the diapers. I'm not making this up. when he talked about "Joe's team" trying to tweak the right drug combination, it's because that's what hi people do to him. god knows he lacks the intellectual curiosity to actually READ anything about this stuff. remember his weird sniffly behavior when he was "addressing the nation?" that's the Adderall dripping down the back of his throat.
The United States is getting sicker by the day, not so much by its citizens as the ones who are supposed to be the thinkers, the serious people, the ones who uphold sane laws that protect and serve and keep us all from killing each other on sight with one misplaced sentence, thought or move. Not anymore. If you want to see how bad it is probably going to get, come to Louisiana, where we have a MAGA wannabe governor who has made conceal carry legal without a permit, that's going in about now as the French Quarter is becoming Grand Central for the murder of our tourist guests, who also come with their concealed carrys and many just as nutty as the criminals who are walking beside them down the sidewalk. Caution: Do not bump them, side-eye them or otherwise breathe anything that can be interpreted as an insult to their borderline personality reactions. I feel physically ill. We don't seem to be able to catch a break. What about the good guys winning in the end, you know, like before the end is so final nobody makes it to the next stage. And don't let me get started on our homeless. We have tons of them too. Wait till you see the other things he is pushing through, like you can't ask in Freedom of Information about anything he does while governor.
And the dimmest of the wits, Alito and Thomas, stacking the bribery and crimes laws so they can be part of the plunder side of the game without a wink. It kinda feels like the world is coming to an end.
The S.Ct. has gone off the rails, Roberts has gone from someone who claims, "judges are just here to call balls and strikes," to arrogating power by torturing words to say whatever he policy he wants to advance. In the obstruction case he misreads the statute to require the second clause be qualified by the first, i.e. that obstruction must include altering an official document when the second clause clearly states "or by" obstructing a proceeding. Then in the bribery case the Court again takes a plain statute making bribery or giving something of value a crime and magically says the statute only refers to bribes before the official act, and not a "gratuity" after the official has done what was requested. As Scrooge memorably says in disbelief to Bob Cratchit "I'll retire now to Bedlam."
What this Catholic court bribes vs payoffs (aka 'gratuities') siupposed disttinction says about Catholic Church morality is devastating.
What morality?
Their view of what it means to be Catholic (capital C) is far different than what I was taught in 16 years of Catholic education. I survived and dropped much of the bull about organized religion, but the core humanity and decency and service to those less fortunate or able has remained. However,these single issue advocates (pro life…which has nothing to do with life) are uncaring, solipsistic sycophants, out for themselves and their benefactors. We’ve really become a land of tyrants.
What the Catholic clergy were teaching and what they were practicing weren't always the same, or even similar, judging by what I've read—news and fiction—which I must depend on, having been in Catholic churches only for weddings and funerals.
You’re observations are spot on.
Yes and what about the actual paper ballots (official documents) in the official box which were protected by the congressional staffers - paper which would have been immediately destroyed by the "patriot warriors".
"Corporations are people." Devastating decision.
Oh, stop. If we can't catch a break, then let's make our own break. Democrats need to buck up, do the work and win the election. Then we can fix the damage. Chin up - no matter what.
Amen my friend. Stand up straight, get steely eyed, and effing fight like we did in 1968.
Oh for goodness sakes, you think this is the only comment today? If you want my Onward Soldiers fight the good fight, go to the other places. No way I'm doing anything but voting for Joe Biden, even more so now. I'm not stopping. It's just comments of the moment. And about the Supreme Court. I never mentioned Biden nor was I thinking of that.
It seems the world we know/knew IS coming to an end. I can't believe it was so easy for them...starting with MitchMcTurtle.
Be alert - I don’t want this to be the country we are leaving to our children and grandchildren…it doesn’t have to be this way…let’s get off our keisters and work. Our lives are literally on the line.
Ronnie Raygun used that kiester reference often. He was so modest.
Lucian,
All you said is correct and frightening. They are already legislating off of Project 2025.
Be safe,
Steve Dundas
We do have to vote, Lucian. But we have to make it count — I have people urging me to vote third party, since they’re so upset about the debate.
We can’t throw away our votes, folks. Please make them count ….. and make them count FOR someone who has a chance to win, and against Trump or any other Republican.
Please. Vote and make your vote count.
This election, Vote Blue.
Blue…ABSOLUTELY…as if our lives depend on it! Because they do!
I knew all this but reading it here so succinctly laid out has me sobbing, just like last night’s debate did. I know there’s hope but why do I feel like we’re drowning? VOTE VOTE VOTE!
If someone brought a case saying the 13th Amendment wasnʼt legal, would this court legitimize slavery again (outside of prisons)??? As people like to say, asking for some friends.
Yes, and Thomas can't wait to write the majority opinion.
And when they relitigate Loving v Va 388 US 1, do you think he'll be on the side that votes against it?
He never would do anything contrary to what he perceives to be his self-interest.
Thomas will say it is up to each state, then move to a blue state that would allow mixed marriages, leaving half the country in red states to viciously outlaw it again. Or maybe move into his RV and roam around so he can't be held to be a citizen of any state!
Of Course
How About Some Hope, People.
Retire Joe, send T-rump to jail, and vote Rep. Jamie Raskin for President.
A Constitutional Professor for 25 years before serving in Congress, He could rally His former colleagues for laws to ensure the rights We all lost recently.
Rewrite and reshape the Supreme Court. The Constitution gives Congress the right to make laws to restrict the Courts' overreach as shown these past few years.
That's My Solution. We need Hope out here...Damn It !!!
Alan South of Boston
Gee, guess you don't remember what happened with Gene McCarthy. But thanks for trying the same hackneyed garbage. LBJ gave in and handed the election to Nixon. Sure, run Rep. Raskin, that's a good idea. Take a man who is still recovering from cancer treatment and is a powerhouse desperately needed in the House of Representatives and put him in a no win situation. Who even said he would want the job. Whose side are you on?
Not only do I remember…I worked on Gene McCarthy’s campaign inNew York. My 2nd Lt. husband was going to be off to Vietnam within the year, and I was convinced that McCarthy would end that sh**show. He WON the NY primary and at Chicago’s convention, the GREAT STATE OF NEW YORK nominated Hubert H. Humphrey.” WHAT???!!! As a result, the rule was established that delegates had to vote for the primary winner!!! Where is Eugene McCarthy when we need him?
I received an email from a disability advocacy group concerned with the S. Court [nothing supreme about them] decision to knock down Chevron. No, we have to worry about rule-making that affects our Medicaid, public health and housing regs, and the biggie; the ADA; Americans with Disabilities Act. Basically the ADA prohibits discrimination in many areas of life, including employment and public transportation as well as telling state and local gov'ts. how to regulate so as to not discriminate against disabled people. This is a major upheaval and who knows how it will be resolved, but you can bet the courts are completely unprepared to think about human rights for disabled people. They have just shown how little concern they have for human life, in decision about people who are unhoused.
Good news: Susan Linehan nails the terminology! 'The Extreme Court.' As in 'The Extreme Court is going to change your life.' https://linehan.substack.com/p/if-you-thought-the-debate-was-bad/comments
Your recitation of awfulness is why I refuse to clutch my pearls, faint on a couch, etc over one lousy debate. Biden is and will be the candidate. Another Biden term is a chance to fix SCOTUS. No time for dithering. I gotta go. I have get-out-the-vote postcards to write.
I have postcards to write as well. What’s the most effective time for sending them? I really mean it.
I write postcards for three organizations, and they give instructions for mailing dates in my experience so far. I'm finishing a batch of GOTV cards for Postcards to Swing States that we're not supposed to mail until Oct. 17. Postcards to Voters usually wants the cards mailed within a week or so. Depends on the campaign. The other group I write for is Activate America, they also set deadlines. Hope this helps.
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the Richard poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."--Anatole France
The rich and poor alike
Yes, thanks. I saw the typo after I hit send. Autocorrect strikes again.
Are we going to survive this Supreme Court? Are we going to survive Biden's disastrous performance on the debate stage? Perhaps the best question is this: Are we going to survive?
The debate was a bad night, but those happen and nothing new or different was said by or about either candidate. The Court, on the other hand, is a carefully barbered melange of true believers, crackpots, incompetents and residents of seats that even they have to understand don't belong to them (select all that apply, those are not mutually exclusive) -- and a paralegal -- and she may actually be the least ridiculous of the majority. The damage this court has done, and will continue to do, is terrifying.
Who’s the paralegal?
That's Barrett, who's got almost as much trial/judicial experience as Aileen Cannon has. Barrett may not be the disaster I have feared: she's shown some signs of actual independence. But she's got a very long way to go.
Yes, yes and yes.
I am with you on the Chevron case, and still am trying to find out what the actual punishment was in the homeless case, though I agree totally that the reasoning sucks. But I find I have to differ on the obstruction case. I've been commenting more times this morning than trump lied last night, so I'm going to repeat myself here:
"I read Jackson's concurrence on the obstruction case--it surprised me to see her do so. And her concurrence made sense. It relied on legislative history and pointed out the specific thing the statute was aimed at--corporate fraud and doing things that obstructed the investigation of it. Unlike originalism, this is a valid way of analyzing a statute.
This isn't going to "free" anyone who had more than the obstruction count found against them. The "pure" obstruction cases didn't get much in the way of sentencing and many have probably already been released if jailed at all. This wouldn't affect any trespassing charges, misdemeanors though they may be. In fact, the Appellant was actually found guilty on 6 other counts in his J6 case. He's not leaving his punishment behind any time soon.
Jack Smith doesn't seem worried about any damage to his own case. When you get down to the conspiracy to use fake electors and the like, there are undoubtedly plenty of acts regarding documents to hang your hat on and fit the narrowed meaning of the holding."
You may be right, but why does the Court need to resort to researching the legislative history when the statute is clear on it's face? There is no ambiguity there to resolve.
Because it isn’t really clear in the whole context of Sarbanes-Oxley. It seems to me highly unlikely that Congress chose that language with the idea that it would be useful if people stormed the Capitol. Basic interpretation of ANYTHING has to consider the context.
What we really do need is a statute that specifically applies to obstruction of any government function at all, not just those involved in fraud.
If that was literally true the law would never evolve to apply to changing issues. I'm not an expert in statutory construction, but it appears most judges aren't either considering all the differing opinions that have been issued.
Let’s just say that courts look at legislative history all the time, to either uphold or overturn a statute. It hasn’t really stopped the evolution of law.
Yes, when a statute is ambiguous, but I have to go with ACB here where she says "statutes often go further than the problem that inspired them," and goes on to hold that they then stick with the wording itself. Here the statute was clear and I can't agree that the Court should have substituted it's own MAGA view to hold that insurrectionists can freely storm the capital.
Would you feel the same if the statue was part of, say, the tax code? Or (on a state level) pulled from the laws governing probate?
In any event, the the actual statute involved is 18 U.S. Code § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant. That's not what was going on on January 6.
We didn't HAVE a statute that dealt with the kind of obstruction that happened, overall, on January 6 because no one ever thought it WOULD happened. Now we need one.
My main feeling is that because of this decision it doesn't follow that people are "allowed to freely storm the Capitol." Apparently NO ONE was convicted at trial SOLELY on the statute itself--a total of 25 people pleaded guilty to that section and no other. Those folks will get off, even if the guilty plea was a bargain that dismissed other claims. But overall use of the statute was an added charge in a string of other serious charges. And according to DOJ it was just charged in 350 cases anyway, none of them solely on that basis. News stories that hundreds will be released are bunk. Appellant himself is charged with SIX other serious charges and if convicted not going anywhere soon.
See https://www.justsecurity.org/96493/supreme-court-obstruction-january-6th/
PS: weird Substack quirk. I have NO idea why the reference to the statute has a line break where it does. I've even tried to change it to just "the statute" and the stupid line-break citation keeps returning
In a perfect world Supreme Court Justices would be chose from the best legal scholars in the county as well as the best expert on constitutional law. They would not be chosen based on political affiliation at all. but be thoroughly vetted by a panel of their peers, as well as undergo a character analysis with psychological tests. and a review of all past legal decisions.
Lastly a review of charitable work or donations (to homeless shelters perhaps :) that would show empathy for the common man (and woman). (Hey, imagine if legislators and presidential candidates were chosen along these lines too?).
Our justices are about as far away from being homeless as the distance from here to the moon, But I am reminded of Charles Dickens' Christmas Carol, how Scrooge was transformed.
Regarding the obstruction case. Remember when the Jan 6 committee subpoena document from the Trump administration and they simply ignored the subpoenas? How would that fare under this new law. And what if Biden wins again and instead of a violent insurrection, all the Republicans brought drums and Trumpets into the chamber and made an ungodly racker as the . Electoral College votes were counted? No documents altered or destroyed, but no audible record of the count? Would this not be obstruction of an official proceeding?
My dear late dad told me to never drive when I was tired or sleepy. In my minivan I could park in a safe lighted rest area and take a brief nap in back with yes, a pillow and blanket that I kept there.
Mr Balls & Strikes this morning they referred to Roberts as a "moderate". The court is 2 centuries behind , and my therapist is on vacation. Yesterday on Woodward Ave in Mich I got menaced by a maga in a spanking new black truck with Sir Crime A Lots flags everywhere.
“Sir Crime-a-lot” My new favorite.