• SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    94
    ·
    5 months ago

    So if an armed and violent group were to break down the doors and windows of the Supreme Court while it was in session with the announced intent to disrupt their proceedings and possibly commit bodily harm to the justices and their staff and personnel, that’s all cool?

  • Snapz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    5 months ago

    Since the Supreme Court agreed last month to take the case, Fischer v. US, more than a dozen January 6 defendants have already asked judges to halt their upcoming sentencings and trials. While some judges have balked, others have agreed to delays for the rioters in a handful of cases.

    You can’t just say “some judges” in the era of trump appointed judges, it’s relevant context and 9/10 times these articles omit that key distinction.

    • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      You severely underestimate the level of apathy in this country when it comes to actually taking action. If it requires them to step away from being keyboard warriors, most people in this country want no part of it.

  • yesman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    5 months ago

    So the leader of a violent coup attempt is given a lenient punishment by a sympathetic judiciary?

    Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.

    • AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      5 months ago

      The article does a poor job of communicating what the case is about.

      The questions presented: “Did the D.C. Circuit err in construing 18 U.S.C. § 1512© (“Witness, Victim, or Informant Tampering”). Which prohibits obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations. to include acts unrelated to investigations and evidence?"[1]

      https://ballotpedia.org/Fischer_v._United_States

      • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        I know, I know. We’re talking about Trump and his lawyers here, which means nothing makes sense by default.

        But wouldn’t the counting of the votes be a congressional inquiry? I mean it’s literally answering the question of “Who won the election?”.

        Can we go back to the days where a sane Supreme Court would have laughed this entire argument out of the room?

        • Fedizen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          5 months ago

          I would not call any supreme court “sane” but there was a period where there were some basic standards.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    5 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    If the challenge is successful, the Supreme Court could potentially wipe away two of the four counts that special counsel Jack Smith has brought against the former president in his federal election interference case, and upend felony convictions for dozens of January 6 rioters.

    The former president’s lawyers plan to make challenges in his case around the obstruction law if it returns to the trial judge before the Supreme Court rules, a source has told CNN.

    The special counsel’s office has already argued that appeals over the obstruction charge shouldn’t affect Trump, because his alleged crimes included falsifying electoral vote certificates and sending them to Congress, according to a previous court filing.

    Several defense attorneys representing January 6 rioters are deciding whether to ask for relief in the DC District Court, while some have already attempted to pause upcoming trials or sentencings, according to people familiar with their strategies.

    A Trump supporter who had traveled from Texas for the January 6 rally in Washington, DC, Harkrider had argued his case was directly affected because he said the primary felony charge he faced was obstruction.

    Rioters accused of violence toward police — those more likely to be awaiting their trials and sentencings in jail — are less likely to be affected significantly by the Supreme Court’s obstruction ruling, because of the seriousness of assault charges.


    The original article contains 1,213 words, the summary contains 224 words. Saved 82%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!