r/facepalm • u/Loud-Ad-2280 • 2d ago
Yeah they probably should have been charged with treason not just obstruction 🇵🇷🇴🇹🇪🇸🇹
[removed] — view removed post
2.3k
u/SirMeyrin2 2d ago
A quick reminder that Alito and Thomas were allowed to be a part of this case despite one supporting the coup and the other's wife being a planner of Jan 6.
924
u/EmperorGrinnar 2d ago
America is screwed.
→ More replies (19)481
u/spinyfur 2d ago
Just a friendly reminder that the country’s founding fathers thought the government they were creating wouldn’t last as long as it already has.
161
u/EmperorGrinnar 2d ago
Yeah, I forget the number they gave as a cyclical guestimation.
107
u/taildraggerG2 2d ago
Looks like every 19 years. Fun rabbit hole!
133
u/MiloReyes_97Reborn 2d ago
Quoted from top comment
"As to whether or not he actually said it...
Short answer: No.
Long answer: Sort of. Thomas Jefferson, when writing to James Madison, suggested that the entire government work on cycles of 19 years, including extension of debts, term limits, re-evaluations of the Constitution, governmental ownership of land, etc... This was based on a minimum voting age of 21, and that by 40, a person would be too old to be connected to the ideas of the majority of the voting pool (21 - 40 year olds).
So, while it was suggested, it was not for the sake of creating a new Constitution, but due to, what I understand to be, a generational divide likely caused by lack of technology, communication, etc."
A GENERATIONAL DIVIDE
Jefferson you may have been a bastard in many regards but fuck me if you weren't a smart cookie.
43
u/Scatterspell 2d ago
Jefferson was ahead of his time, even if he was a racist shit. His ideas (if applied to everyone, not just the narrow racial divide he had) were literally revolutionary. (See what I did there, aren't I clever.)
→ More replies (4)16
→ More replies (15)54
u/Ariadne016 2d ago
Yeah. It didn't. They thought there would be no parties....then they also thought it would be a meriocracy of the educated. Neither of those lasted long. That's why we have an amendment system... and a Congress with extensive powers.But embittered losers would rather we not have a functioning government.
32
u/BradTProse 2d ago
They thought people would have honor and integrity and know what the word Demogauge means.
→ More replies (5)44
u/bhamss 2d ago
not gonna lie the last 24 hrs has been next level depressing
→ More replies (2)27
u/MooseAndSquirl 2d ago
Ah June when the SCOTUS decisions come out. If they have proved anything it's that anything can be overturned, even 60 year old case law.
→ More replies (2)7
u/largeEoodenBadger 1d ago
I don't want to say it, but that's what you get for legislating from the bench. Codify Roe, codify Chevron. Don't let one bad supreme court fuck up your entire system of governance.
Or if Biden/the Dems had any balls, they'd pull an Andrew Jackson on the SC. "Justice Roberts has made his decision, now let him enforce it"
→ More replies (1)141
u/CaptStrangeling 2d ago
That is really screwed up and I’m so tired of these unamerican clowns
61
u/Sckillgan 2d ago
They are just as traitorous, covering their asses like this over and over.
→ More replies (2)27
u/Revolutionary_Ad6962 2d ago
These days there's nothing more American than a clown. Everyone in Washington is a rubber nose and a seltzer bottle away from showing their true colors.
→ More replies (1)40
u/BitumenBeaver 2d ago
Kangaroo court.
34
u/SirMeyrin2 2d ago
Yeah, if there is one court in the US that is a kangaroo court, it's definitely SCOTUS
23
u/JustABizzle 2d ago
Why? How? How was this allowed?
76
u/SirMeyrin2 2d ago
Because rules for SCOTUS justices are intentionally lax. And the justices know they're wrong.
41
u/laggerzback 2d ago
Man, we really need to put checks and balances on the Supreme Court. And offer term limits.
They can’t reject laws based on their feelings. They have to make decisions based on the Constitution.
27
u/AngrgL3opardCon 2d ago
Offer? No, TELL them there is. Don't give them a choice, if you give them a choice they'll laugh and say no while taking a billionaires money IN FRONT of everyone.
→ More replies (2)15
u/SirMeyrin2 2d ago
Clarence Thomas could accept a billion dollar check from Harlon Crow in front of a packed CPAC crowd, and they'd still kiss his ass.
There is video of a "woman" for Kavanaugh saying that he'd still support Kavanaugh for SCOTUS even if he was guilty of sexual assault, because he wanted to see Roe v. Wade overturned
6
u/AngrgL3opardCon 2d ago
Religious fuck head of a woman huh lol
3
u/SirMeyrin2 2d ago
It wasn't a woman at all. It was a man wearing a "women for Kavanaugh" shirt
→ More replies (1)6
u/nilzatron 2d ago
It should also be easier to remove federal judges. What Elaine Cannon is doing to the classified documents case is absolutely ridiculous.
Two of her more experienced peers have already called upon her to remove herself, but she refuses, because she is exactly where she wants to be.
3
→ More replies (2)5
u/Obie-Wun 2d ago
And, this is why we can’t have nice things. Most of SCOTUS needs to be impeached or they need to be expanded beyond 9.
14
u/Hexamancer 2d ago
Because they are allowed to get away with it.
Until the American public drag them from their homes and remind them of whom they serve, they will continue to act this way.
I am, of course, not advocating for that.
→ More replies (1)4
u/JustABizzle 2d ago
Of course not.
What are the rules for recusal? Is it like the police departments saying “we’ve thoroughly investigated ourselves and we can find no wrongdoing?”
It seems SO inexcusable, unfair and just wrong. Why can’t we have better systems with checks and balances?
4
u/MxteryMatters 2d ago edited 2d ago
What are the rules for recusal?
Most judges must recuse themselves in any cases where their impartiality could be reasonably questioned. There are even judicial ethics commissions that can help determine if a judge should recuse themselves.
However, none of that applies to the Supreme Court Justices. They can decide for themselves if they should recuse, and there is no mechanism in place to force them to recuse themselves. There are no commissions that can tell them that they should recuse themselves.
It is up to Congress to reign in the Justices, but Republicans won't support any efforts to reign in the Supreme Court now that they have a 6-3 conservative Supreme Court.
EDITS for grammar.
→ More replies (1)10
5
u/SimonPho3nix 2d ago
We let an orange man be president, and he stacked the deck for Republicans so all those arguments going to the Supreme Court will be stacked up like cordwood and judged the way republican money wants it to be judged.
→ More replies (55)18
1.0k
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
639
u/Sanguine_Templar 2d ago
Nah, it's illegal to harass the supreme court. They started crying AS SOON as people got mad at their decision.
265
u/CallMeNiel 2d ago
They made their ruling. Let them enforce it.
172
u/Eeddeen42 2d ago
Andrew “Genocide the Natives” Jackson is not exactly the best person to be quoting my dude.
30
u/help_icantchoosename 2d ago
Actually, he may be the perfect person to quote, since he was a racist nutter just like Trump.
67
72
u/CallMeNiel 2d ago
Good call, I knew I'd heard it somewhere but couldn't remember the context or who said it.
20
u/Anewkittenappears 2d ago edited 2d ago
Although I agree with you, I feel like the incitement of Jackson's quote in this context raises an interesting point: Throughout our history we've repeatedly seen the far right get away with ignoring supreme court rulings, up to and including genocide, often because it goes without proper enforcement. Meanwhile, I've never seen anyone even tangentially connected with the left get away with doing the same. When the supreme court told Jackson not to genocide native people's or more recently told Texas' governor to take down their barbed wire death traps at the border they flagrantly ignored them without ever facing consequences. Meanwhile, when the supreme court makes rulings putting gun rights over human lives or stripping back human rights, it's treated as settled law that must be abided by without exception. It's no wonder everything is so fucked when one side was allowed to just continue blatantly ignoring the law and the courts until they finally managed to stack it with enough corrupt sycophants, only for them to suddenly act like they are beyond reproach.
→ More replies (14)3
u/UnquestionabIe 2d ago
They're probably under the impression that they can just vote fascism away. If they displayed even a third of what the the opposition does things might not have become such a shit show. At this pace, if we're optimistic, we're going to just be fighting a forever war of just barely avoiding the worst case scenario of democracy failing (even more so than it has been).
But hey at least they held the moral high ground while being lined against the wall waiting for the bullet!
25
27
u/BuckyWarden 2d ago
Work will set you free?
27
u/Tuout1911 2d ago
It’s the sign above Auschwitz’s. One of the most notorious death camps under control of the Nazi regime in ww2, in Poland
→ More replies (27)→ More replies (8)13
u/zkidparks 2d ago
Exhibit 595 of “I know this person said it for bad reasons but we have to be better than them or we are all also Andrew Jacksons.”
→ More replies (1)10
16
43
u/GwarRawr1 2d ago
They are Tyrants. People should show up at their door.
A court likely isn't going to decide tyranny since SCOTUS is holding on to the immunity verdict. It's going to be the 2nd amendment. And in Texas one Republican was able to use it against Protestors since he was pardoned.
→ More replies (65)5
u/FrancisSobotka1514 2d ago
Well they put up fencing around the supreme court this week .
8
u/UnquestionabIe 2d ago
Funny how despite acting as if they're above the rest of us they still have the reaction to cower in fear when knowingly doing the wrong thing.
→ More replies (1)101
u/alexagente 2d ago
I know it's not the 'right' thing but it's getting harder and harder to care.
These people are enacting tyranny from the bench. If the system won't take care of that problem, what will?
44
u/chibbly_ 2d ago
The people. There's literally one amendment that, for all intents and purposes, remains untouchable.
→ More replies (6)60
u/Drudgework 2d ago
You mean we should form a militia and strike down the tyrants?
42
u/GlitterNutz 2d ago
It is technically our duty as citizens to remove a government that no longer serves the will of the people. What the threshold for that is is the mystery, I feel like we are there though.
16
→ More replies (4)7
u/Drudgework 2d ago
The government or its agencies would have to enact policy that blatantly violates the constitution and/or established law, or deprives citizens of constitutional rights on a large scale. The will of the people argument is useless as the government is the one that defines who the people are. Right now they define the people as corporations and billionaires.
16
u/TheFriendshipMachine 2d ago
The government or its agencies would have to enact policy that blatantly violates the constitution and/or established law, or deprives citizens of constitutional rights on a large scale.
Ah, so right now then.
7
25
8
6
u/XyRabbit 2d ago
I'll be put on a list for this and I don't care. Americans are allowed to be mad, but we're not allowed to be mad enough to enact change.
→ More replies (10)3
→ More replies (11)7
u/InkBlotSam 2d ago
Just surround the bench, hovering over them waving your hands a couple inches above their documents, pulling the little brother move: "But I'm not tooouching them! Not tooouching them!"
→ More replies (1)
580
u/Chaosrealm69 2d ago edited 2d ago
They caused the session of Congress to be disrupted by their attack on the building, requiring Congress members to leave to safer locations, and the Supreme Court says that charging them with obstruction of an official proceeding is wrong?
But because the SCOTUS narrowly looked at the law used, and thought it was specifically meant to charge for destruction of evidence alone, they decided that it didn't apply to the Jan 6th insurrectionists.
Edit: missed the last part of the thought I was posting.
327
u/DelirousDoc 2d ago
Ignore the fact several Justices have shown support for the cause of January 6th and one Justice's wife literally helped organize it.
I am sure they were able to be impartial and weigh the facts without bias...
→ More replies (6)60
u/LuchaConMadre 2d ago
How is this not being challenged based on that weird old lady’s flags? He’s still on the court right?
→ More replies (1)76
u/theblindbandit1 2d ago
Challenged to whom? The Supreme Court is the highest court. There’s no one to challenge their rulings
31
u/Jace_Te_Ace 2d ago
The Senate. But they agree with the insurrectionists too. Voting matters.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)3
18
u/AliveAndThenSome 2d ago
I looked long and hard at the use of 'otherwise' and the punctuation and all that, and never in all my years would I have come to the conclusion that SCOTUS did. To me, it's crystal clear that interfering with the process of certifying the vote (e.g. the Jan 6 riot/storming the chambers) is just as serious as damaging the documents themselves. It comes down to intent and success in interfering, period.
87
u/Dansk72 2d ago
Just like Justice Clarence Thomas' corrupt and utterly stupid logic in proclaiming that a bump stock is not an illegal machine gun because it doesn’t make the weapon fire more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger.
57
17
u/Steppy20 2d ago
He's pretty obviously corrupt, but in that specific case he's right.
The legal definition of a machine gun is any gun which fires more than one round from a single use of the trigger. Even if that trigger is electronic instead of mechanical.
A bump stock doesn't change the trigger, so by definition it's not a machine gun.
Should the definition be updated? Possibly. But by letter of the law he's right.
→ More replies (4)3
u/Intelligent_Pilot360 2d ago
It sounds like perfect logic based on the definition of a machine gun.
→ More replies (13)19
→ More replies (15)11
227
u/Dwags789 2d ago
Right after legalizing bribery and reclassifying the homeless population as slaves. Very cool.
→ More replies (2)46
u/NigilQuid 2d ago
reclassifying the homeless population as slaves
Wait, what? What did I miss?
→ More replies (2)34
u/Living-Vermicelli-59 2d ago
Yeah I’m with you on this I heard abort bribery shit but not the homeless are slaves now. I need a viable source of proof like APnews
49
u/thedude0425 2d ago
Read through the decision for yourself. It does not reclassifying the homeless as slaves.
It’s not a great decision, but that’s a far cry from what it does.
What it does do is open the door for a lot of systemic abuse and an expansion of vagrancy law.
23
u/Notedtoad 2d ago
It’s a combination of things. It makes being homeless illegal and slavery is acceptable under the 13th amendment as punishment for a crime. So states will make laws criminalizing homelessness filling their private prisons with people they can exploit for free labor further incentivizing corporations to make everyone’s lives worse and pilfer every last dime from working class Americans. We will all be slaves soon enough.
5
u/thegooseisloose1982 2d ago
We will all be slaves soon enough.
I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees.
3
u/RebelCMX_85 1d ago
I’ll die on my feet so my daughters don’t live subjugated lives. In fact, I swore an oath to, several times now. “Upholding the Constitution against all enemies and domestic,” wasn’t kidding and it doesn’t carve out exemptions for “unless Christian Nationalists want to toss it out for a theocracy.”
→ More replies (5)5
u/_mersault 2d ago
Read through the constitution and the last several decades of history for yourself; prisoners can be and are heavily used for unpaid labor.
13
u/dicydico 2d ago
I'm guessing that they're referring to https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-homeless-camping-bans-506ac68dc069e3bf456c10fcedfa6bee
Though, I wouldn't characterize that as slavery.
→ More replies (15)
25
u/SrgtButterscotch 2d ago
"The high court ruled that the charge could still be filed against the rioters if prosecutors are able to demonstrate they were attempting not just to push their way into the building, but rather stop the process to certify the results of the election." (NBCN)
Storming the building would, by default, result in the people inside evacuating and therefore the count being stopped. The two acts are inherently linked, what a circus.
8
u/MiloReyes_97Reborn 2d ago
"Okay but just because they broke into the building doesn't mean they wanted to impead any elections"
They were shouting "stop the vote for 3 days straight up and during the moments they made it to the capital.
5
u/SrgtButterscotch 2d ago
Not to mention the literal gallows they built while also shouting "hang mike pence"
311
u/Malicious_blu3 2d ago
My stomach lurched at hearing this. To me it’s a preview of the worst case scenario.
What have we come to?
207
u/travers329 2d ago edited 2d ago
This, this christofascist hellhole is what is coming: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025
They are literally advertising it, and no one is really talking about it. They're so confident in accomplishing it that it is publicly posted. Brought to you by the same people who control the SC.
We are so fucked, and no one is even talking about this. Care about climate change? NOAA and the EPA are gone. Care about health and domestic security? FDA and FBI are gone and that is just the start. Please read this and spread it around.
49
u/drewskibfd 2d ago
I tell my conservative coworkers about Project 2025. They downplay it as if it's just to scare the libs or something. I'll be laughing my ass off when these guys lose their mind because porn is banned.
→ More replies (5)28
u/travers329 2d ago
I forgot about that Chirstofascist part, banning all pornography... Thanks for bringing it up.
32
u/drewskibfd 2d ago
Those guys don't care about human rights or anything of substance, but losing porn will send them over the edge.
45
u/DelirousDoc 2d ago
Honestly worried about healthcare costs with the most recent ruling overturning Chevron precedent and essentially making regulatory bodies weak.
Drug manufacturers were already challenging HRSA & OPA authority and winning more than losing. I have a feeling this ruling will open the flood gates.
→ More replies (5)51
u/buckyforever 2d ago
Last Week Tonight did a segment on it, so it's starting to get around but not nearly as fast or far as I would like it to.
30
8
u/travers329 2d ago
I need to check that out, haven't seen it yet. Thanks! It needs to become a focal point before the election for sure, and not just on real media, on every news outlet.
→ More replies (2)7
u/Living-Vermicelli-59 2d ago
Had over a year of this shit being out there and it took them this long? Kinda too late now as it’s just gonna be seen as a ploy to smear. It should have been national news months ago.
2
→ More replies (9)7
u/bighurb 2d ago
same as Bush Crime Family, their cronies, and Project for a New American Century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century .. its almost like humanity is a broken record.... i find earplugs useful most days but soon will need a blindfold... been too much
→ More replies (1)46
u/makemeking706 2d ago
They just overturned Chevron. Everybody's day to day life is about to get qualitatively worse as we shift to a state in which profit seeking entities go almost unchecked in their pursuit of cutting costs and extracting wealth.
21
u/Big-Leadership1001 2d ago
honestly this will blow up in their faces. Chevron overturn takes power away from both the Court (who made it up) and the President (who has way too much executive power). This makes Congress pass laws.. which they already do. So instead of a President just deciding to do something, they have to point at the exact law that Congress passed that says they have that power first.
Its going to be a shit show for a while because the majority of Congress doesn't even show up for work half the time. They're going to have to figure out how to work like the rest of us, and corporations will suddenly either have to pay for laws that straight up prove who they are bribing, or get fucked because they can't just bribe executive agencies any more.
Wall Street is a big one here. The SEC has been run by the banks forever. When they get caught committing crimes, the fines are lower than the illicit profits the crimes earned. Congress will need to either just give up on pretending there is any Wall Street oversight, or pass some legislation that actually creates it for the first time ever... and has the side effect of punishing Congress for insider trading. Its going to be interesting.
10
u/wpaed 2d ago
I'm pretty sure this is the actual aim of the court in this case, sending Congress a message to do their fucking jobs or face voter anger over them not doing what they are supposed to.
→ More replies (6)3
u/NemoAtkins2 2d ago
glances at the ongoing effort to hold Biden’s speech writer in contempt
Yeah, that is not going to happen.
169
u/an4rk1st 2d ago
Fascism, we have come to fascism.
→ More replies (3)41
u/MostlyOkayGatsby 2d ago
You aren't there yet, but you are well on the way.
33
u/Big-Leadership1001 2d ago
We really are there and have been for years. Seriously, look at the fascist party through its WW2 origins - the corrupt intertwining of corporations and government and squashing dissent of either using the powers of both. Our modern day interpretations have a lot of baggage to the word because they abused that power to a ridiculous extent (which tbh seems inevitable to fascism by design) but if you look at it as it was from the very beginning, we are already there. hell its creator straight said its the same as "corporatism' - he loved having them scratch his back and he scratched theirs.
Its not that we are on the way to fascism - we have arrived. Its that we're on the way to its inevitable conclusion.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (15)7
u/SubterrelProspector 2d ago
We're probably going to have to fight it back WWII style. Our politicians and media have failed us.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (58)11
u/Socratesticles 2d ago
I’m still going to hold on to blind hope, but between this and the debate my stomach has never been lower regarding our political climate. Now to wait on the immunity ruling
115
u/TheGr8Gumby 2d ago
If democrats did this republicans would be screaming bloody murder while demanding a firing line execution for all who took part.
→ More replies (9)22
u/imahugemoron 2d ago
My question is what does this mean for all the convictions? Are all these terrorists going to get their convictions overturned now and get released? Then sue for wrongful convictions or some shit??
6
u/Flushles 2d ago
It doesn't mean much, that's 1300ish people being charged maybe 100 of them are exclusively being charged with the obstruction stuff, about 300 have obstruction as a part of their charges but also other things.
The remaining 900 wouldn't be effected by this at all.
→ More replies (2)
80
u/Clickityclackrack 2d ago
I've always been so paranoid about googling certain things and getting put on some kind of list. But seeing those jackasses make all those posts prior to jan 6 of them holding their guns and declaring literal acts of terrorism made me realize that i have been greatly mistaken on how much the government is interested in my arbitrary google searches.
→ More replies (4)18
u/richcvbmm 2d ago
Nah you’d have to search up some pretty insane deranged stuff to even catch an eye.
61
u/therealtiddlydump 2d ago
FISCHER v. UNITED STATES
ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS, ALITO , GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, and JACKSON, JJ., joined. JACKSON, J., filed a concurring opinion. BARRETT, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR and KAGAN, JJ., joined
Who's gonna tell Justice Jackson that she's an insurrectionist? Anybody?
→ More replies (3)13
u/SinkoHonays 2d ago
Yeah, I wonder how many commenters here even realize that Jackson sided with the majority and Comey-Barrett with the minority.
The court really doesn’t rule 6-3 along the supposed “party lines” near as often as many think.
13
u/therealtiddlydump 2d ago
She (being a former public defender) and Justice Gorsuch continue to agree on issues that can be summarized: "Yeah, so, uh, the government can't do that to criminal defendants".
This is more of the same. If a prosecutor is going to muster the near-infinite power of the State to charge someone, it's not too much to ask that they charge actual crimes (instead of pulling stuff out of their asses).
45
u/stevensr2002 2d ago
This stacked scotus is paying back Mitch McConnell with dividends 🙄
→ More replies (1)
31
u/TransportationNew715 2d ago
AG Garland, just now: "The vast majority of the more than 1,400 defendants charged for their illegal actions on Jan. 6 will not be affected by this decision."
17
u/protomenace 2d ago
Yeah this decision. There will be more bullshit incoming.
10
u/BigDsLittleD 2d ago
If there's anything I've learned over the last decade, it's that there's always more bullshit incoming.
It's fucking exhausting.
→ More replies (1)
72
9
u/Any-Panda2219 2d ago
I was told by the right Jan 6th was a false flag operation by the Dems though
9
u/TastyBullfrog2755 2d ago
So if Trump wins I can get all insurgent at the Capitol too? Cool.
→ More replies (2)
150
u/AcidScarab 2d ago
The fucked up thing is, they aren’t wrong, if you look at the law they were actually charged under. It was passed after the Enron debacle because people were destroying evidence, this was a maaaassively generous leap to try to apply it to Jan 6.
These people should be prosecuted and in prison, slam dunk, it’s just amazing to me how something can be so easy and they do it so wrong.
106
u/sumdumbum87 2d ago
I mean, it's kinda crazy to me that the charge of 'obstructing an official proceeding' fails here, as this is possibly one of the most official proceedings in the US and they damn sure obstructed it.
I'm a bit floored by Barrett's conclusion here-
The majority, she added, "simply cannot believe that Congress meant what it said" when writing a broad statute intended to cover a lot of different conduct. She wrote that the court "has failed to respect the prerogatives of the political branches" in ruling against prosecutors.
43
u/Saragon4005 2d ago
So now "they are involved in politics so cannot be prosecuted" can not only protect high profile individuals but also extend to fucking rioters?
25
16
u/SmuglySly 2d ago
Really surprised by Barrett siding w liberal justices in a couple of these decisions this week. wtf Kentaji!
6
u/ImAKeeper16 2d ago edited 2d ago
I think you are combining two justices - Amy coney Barrett and justice ketanji brown Jackson are two different people. Edit: never mind - just read who concurred and who dissented. Didn’t know these were two separate and equally valid thoughts.
8
u/SmuglySly 2d ago
Yea I was really surprised to see her side with the conservative justices and Barrett with the other two liberals.
→ More replies (3)12
u/Black_Mammoth 2d ago
Holy fuck, seriously? The so-called originalists refuse to take this VERY recent law at face value?
4
u/owmyfreakingeyes 2d ago
Of the originalists, only Amy Barrett is refusing to take this law at face value and reading it as broader than the scope of the included language.
The other originalists, and the other non-originalist justices in the majority, are reading the law tightly based on the category of things it specifically prohibits.
18
u/ExtinctLikeNdiaye 2d ago
These people should be prosecuted and in prison, slam dunk, it’s just amazing to me how something can be so easy and they do it so wrong.
Everything seems easy when you're looking at it without actual knowledge of how the process works.
The prosecutors are looking at existing laws and seeing what they can realistically prove in a court of law.
The bar for those situations is very high and they want to make sure that they can actually meet that bar before moving forward.
There is nothing "easy" about proving things beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law especially when the law has never really thought about this situation ever occuring.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (34)3
u/Lopsided-Yak9033 2d ago
I don’t understand how this is a massive leap - one argument appealing it says it’s only for “investigative proceedings” but the sections of the law I can find don’t seem to define the confirmation of the vote as outside the definition of an official proceeding; and the other argument I saw was that the word “otherwise” would narrow the scope to just evidence - but that’s not how the statute reads at all.
Not a lawyer, but I had thought that part of the job was using terms to either narrow or broaden the scope of a law or contract was done very carefully to clarify enforcing it. To me - using the word “otherwise” after the line specific to evidence, and then stating impeding, influencing, obstructing or attempting to do so.
To me that’s pretty iron clad wording. They attempted to impeded an official proceeding before congress.
8
u/tkuck 2d ago
Calm down. It was one of the counts. The other counts were not reviewed by this appeal. And the count invoked violation of a statute that was intended to punish white collar criminals who conceal evidence and interfere with an investigation or proceeding. It was a stretch to use Sarbanes-Oxley to prosecute them.
Relax. They are all still in jail for breaking/entering, assault, criminal trespass, etc.
→ More replies (2)
21
u/AdImmediate9569 2d ago
Yeah this is what happens when you coddle traitors. Did we learn nothing from reconstruction?!?
6
u/Jonguar2 2d ago
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
-George Orwell's 1984, 1949
40
u/zombienugget 2d ago
I just can’t anymore. I’m about to just completely withdraw from everything. I can’t keep hearing about our country being destroyed and fascism taking over.
30
u/Randadv_randnoun_69 2d ago
That's what they want, don't let them win. Vote. Bring a friend to double your power.
17
u/zombienugget 2d ago
Definitely voting and making sure everyone I know does. Just can’t read about it anymore
5
6
6
5
8
15
u/fgzhtsp 2d ago
It was after all just "domestic terrorism" not "real terrorism"... /s
→ More replies (2)
5
4
u/3d1thF1nch 1d ago
It’s interesting to hear that the judges think the charges were wrong, when many courts have weighed In, and hundreds of jurors have agreed that, yes, in fact, these chucklefucks have met the standard of obstruction based on meticulous investigation and court proceedings by the Justice department.
3
5
3
u/DGJellyfish 2d ago
I say the left go to the Supreme Court and do the same, let’s see how they feel
5
u/Magooracing 2d ago
Or better yet have those J6 idiots go to the justices vacation homes to “party” see if they like it. What’s a few turds among friends?
4
u/Content_Chemistry_64 2d ago
"Hundreds of" not "all"
Let's not forget all the videos we've seen over the years from literally every protest where they run into people that don't even know why they're there, but assumed it was for something else and jumped in.
It's absolutely possible that there were people there that shouldn't be charged with anything.
4
u/zabdart 2d ago
Maybe Alito and Thomas should be charged with aiding and abetting an insurrection.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/Amarieerick 2d ago
Just a reminder that the Supreme Court is now MAKING laws, not protecting the Constitution.
5
3
u/LithiumAM 2d ago
To all the short sighted idiots considering not voting Biden, think of how fucked up things will be if Sotomayer dies. Think of how permanent this joke of a SC will be once Thomas and Alito step down and Trump gets to appoint two young judges
→ More replies (1)3
u/Commercial_Step9966 2d ago
Trump will put Scott Baio and Kyle Rittenhouse in there… unless Ivanka mentions it over breakfast “gee, Dad if I were a SCOTUS”
4
5
u/l008com 2d ago
Remember kids, voting for president *IS* voting for the supreme court. So if you're not going to vote for biden because he's "too old" or whatever, you're GOING to get more trump supreme court appointees. So enjoy that when birth control is banned and trying to coup is perfectly legal.
4
2d ago
Shouldn’t the judges appointed by Trump have recused themselves? Huge conflict of interest and glaring bias showing.
6
u/Responsible-Lemon257 2d ago
They were charged with obstruction under the Sarbanes-Oxley which is used for financial record keeping and reporting. I don't see the problem with the decision as all of the J6th rioters were charged with crimes that will still stand.
No the problem lies, if they can now sue the government.
6
u/witwebolte41 2d ago
Every single one of us deserves a fair and properly conducted trial if convicted of a crime; anyone in here that disagrees with that sentiment is part of the overall problem.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/indecloudzua 2d ago
McConnell killed the legitimacy of the Court when he changed rules TWICE to pack the court with Conservatives that rather destroy the Nation.
→ More replies (4)
3
u/ewileycoy 2d ago
Am I the only one a little terrified by these last few things? Like when Trump was elected, we were like "well Congress is deadlocked so they won't impeach and remove, but at least the Courts will protect us from an imperial presidency, right??" and now I'm not sure sure any more.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Brandoskey 2d ago
I was always worried about the courts. We spoke about it at union meetings. The president of my local literally warned the membership that the next President would likely get 3 supreme court picks and we should want them to be friendly to labor.
3
3
3
u/TampaTrey 2d ago
These past two days have been nothing short of an embarrassment and a colossal shit stain on the USA.
3
18
11
u/fleecescuckoos06 2d ago
Makes me wonder why Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined five conservatives in the majority? Even Amy Coney Barrett sided against it
17
u/owmyfreakingeyes 2d ago
No need to wonder, just read her concurrence. Justice Jackson supports the idea that a criminal law needs to have a scope and meaning understandable to people that may be charged under it prior to their acts.
This law only specifically prohibits altering, concealing, or destroying records and evidence. It then contains a general provision prohibiting other unspecified acts that otherwise achieve the same purpose as the listed acts.
Justice Jackson believes that section only serves to prohibit acts of a similar type as those listed and not anything that might be "obstructive" in the general vernacular. The legislative history bears out that the purpose of this statute was to prevent document and evidence tampering.
5
5
u/ThatGuyLuis 2d ago
The Supreme Court does not make the law, it interprets the law. If people want to see the Supreme Court lose their power, congress needs to legislate.
9
u/get-a-mac 2d ago
The thing that pisses me off the most is I get to spend the night in jail for watching a video without headphones on a train.
These guys get to trash a government building and try to stop an election.
→ More replies (1)
19
u/m1dlife-1derer 2d ago
The US Supreme Court is more like a kangaroo court. Thanks Trump, you fascist.
→ More replies (2)11
u/dont-fear-thereefer 2d ago edited 2d ago
Just as a note: Justice Jackson (liberal) sided with the majority and Justice Barrett (conservative) sided with the desenters.
Edit: spelling
→ More replies (3)
2
u/landlord1776 2d ago
Don’t forget that chevron was burned to the ground too essentially stripping these federal 3 letter agencies of their power.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/Agent_Vox 2d ago
When the Supreme Court takes care of their own corrupt members I'll maybe care what they think about anything. And if Trump ends up in office again, this is going to look tame in comparison to what he's gonna try and get away with.
2
u/Icy-Needleworker-492 2d ago
In any sane country Trump would be in prison awaiting execution for treason.
2
2
u/KappHallen 2d ago
You mean the Double Secret FBI Antifa plants to make traitor trump look bad? I'm cool with them being released then.
2
u/DataBeardly 2d ago
Well at least 2 of the "justices" and\or their wives have the appearance of being either in on or at least supportive of, the insurrection so what would it have come out to if they were even remotely honorable and recused themselves from this one?
•
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the rules.
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail here or Reddit site admins here. All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.