April 16, 2024

"The Supreme Court seemed wary... of letting prosecutors use a federal obstruction law to charge hundreds of rioters involved in the Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021...."

"Mr. Trump’s case did not come up at the argument, which was largely focused on trying to make sense of a statute that all concerned agreed was not a model of clarity. But the justices’ questions also considered the gravity of the assault and whether prosecutors have been stretching the law to reach members of the mob responsible for the attack. Justice Clarence Thomas, who returned to the bench after an unexplained absence on Monday, asked whether the government was engaging in a kind of selective prosecution. 'There have been many violent protests that have interfered with proceedings,' he said. 'Has the government applied this provision to other protests?'..."

Adam Liptak reports in the NYT.

34 comments:

Dan from Madison said...

'There have been many violent protests that have interfered with proceedings,' he said. 'Has the government applied this provision to other protests?'..." Thank you!!!

Gusty Winds said...

"The Supreme Court seemed wary...of letting prosecutors lock up political prisoners"

Freeman Hunt said...

It's undermining the rule of law to go after these rioters so relentlessly when similar rioters all across the country were ignored during the same time period because their cause was politically favored.

cubanbob said...

Thomas made a pointed reminder that the door swings both ways. A lot of people in DC could get snared by this next year if the court allows this.

Yancey Ward said...

Supreme Court seems concerned about our gulag. Good.

Yancey Ward said...

And the answer to Thomas' question is, of course, no. Had Trump's election had been confirmed on January 6th 2021 and Biden supporters had rioted in an identical manner, there is literally zero chance any such rioters would have spent more than a day or two in lockup, and if any were actually prosecuted, none would have been convicted by a jury and most likely all the charges would have been dismissed by the exact same trial judges.

What happened to the January 6th protestors is black mark against our justice system- it makes me ashamed to be an American. We now have political prisoners.

Josephbleau said...

I'll have to look up the Justice Depts response. Pulling the fire alarm to stop a vote in congress is a good example, Rep. Bowman was not charged under the statute, even when Congress came out of session.

FleetUSA said...

I'll wait for Amy Howe's analysis.

Goldenpause said...

Federal and state prosecutors have a long and sorry record of using "creative" interpretations of criminal statutes to go after their targets. A criminal statute is unconstitutionally vague in violation of due process for either of two reasons: first, if “it fails to give ordinary people fair notice” of what is proscribed;" and, second, if it is “so standardless that it invites arbitrary enforcement.” Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551, 2556 (2015). So the Supreme Court should be wary. Even Justices Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson should recognize the inherent danger of letting prosecutors run amok because you never know who will be in power at some point down the road

Drago said...

Listening to the responses from The New Soviet Democratical lawyer go Full Pretzel one realizes what an insane meanderous interpretation pathway based on non-defineable criteria for prosecution these New Soviets are constructing which all boils down to conservatives bad /leftists good.

Gee, New Soviets are just like the Old Soviets.

And we see these 2-tiered interpretation frameworks being deployed across the board at all levels of govt.
Unexpectedly.

Christopher B said...

Like reading the Access Hollywood tape transcript at Trump's trial, the 'gravity of the assault' has nothing to do with whether provisions of Sarbanes-Oxley can be applied to actions of protestors or even rioters.

The Insurrection Act is perfectly good law. If it has been violated, use it to bring charges.

PM said...

Short Thomas: Ba-boom.

Skeptical Voter said...

A chink in the Dim lawfare armor?

rhhardin said...

It ought to die on due process. There's no advance warning that what they did is a crime in the written law.

Mark said...

Mr. Trump’s case did not come up at the argument

But how many people are going to make it all about Trump? As everything always is and must be.

Aggie said...

What did Jusice Kavanaugh have to say about certain other 'violent protests that have interfered with proceedings', one wonders. Roll the video!

Virgil Hilts said...

I think application of this statue here is monstrous. But I did listen to a good chink of the argument and, my God, Elizabeth Prelogar is a once in a generation talent. I have become somewhat obsessed with her. Read her wiki entry.

Dude1394 said...

"'There have been many violent protests that have interfered with proceedings,' he said. 'Has the government applied this provision to other protests?'...""

Greatness

Dude1394 said...

"Blogger Yancey Ward said...
And the answer to Thomas' question is, of course, no. Had Trump's election had been confirmed on January 6th 2021 and Biden supporters had rioted in an identical manner, there is literally zero chance any such rioters would have spent more than a day or two in lockup, and if any were actually prosecuted, none would have been convicted by a jury and most likely all the charges would have been dismissed by the exact same trial judges.

What happened to the January 6th protestors is black mark against our justice system- it makes me ashamed to be an American. We now have political prisoners."

It has completely tarnished my feelings about my own country. I see it now for a corrupt, illegitimate entity. PERIOD. How can I abide that?

JIM said...

In a nutshell, Democrats made the decision that retaining power is far more important than preserving the appearance of equal justice. Unfortunately many that vote Democrat think it's the right decision too. After years of the big lie that Trump is Hitler, the end justifies the means.

Big Mike said...



And the proof of Yancey Ward’s assertion is what really did happen to the people who staged a riot in downtown DC during Trump’s Inauguration in 2017.

Jamie said...

I'm trying hard to bear in mind that there were 2500 protest bombings in the US in an 18-month period between 1971 and 1972 (link here) and the Union did not fall.

But it hasn't escaped my notice that this time the bombers are in charge of - not just "in" - the government, the legal system, the financial system, academia, federal law enforcement...

I'll bet literally the same people in some cases.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Gusty Winds said...
"The Supreme Court seemed wary...of letting prosecutors lock up political prisoners"


You know, I read this and got the strongest sense of deja vu. Every word, every letter, the context, even Gusty supplying the comment.

Mason G said...

"What happened to the January 6th protestors is black mark against our justice system- it makes me ashamed to be an American. We now have political prisoners."

As far as identifying 'black marks' goes, a fair number of American citizens/voters appear to be awfully happy about the 'political prisoners' part.

Just sayin'.

The Real Andrew said...

The incident that bothers me the most (on this topic) is the attack on the White House when Trump was President. How many people were arrested for that? Instead, Trump was mocked for being moved to the bunker, and the police and Secret Service were accused of fomenting violence. This was, after all, a peaceful protest.

MadisonMan said...

The protest was years ago. Doesn't the Constitution guarantee -- sort of -- a speedy trial?

Iman said...

Go ahead on, SCOTUS! Shove this horseschiff up Jack Smith’s ass and he can munch on a twice-baked potato.🥔💩

And send POTATUS Biden back to whatever Circle of Hell he came from.

Iman said...

These lefty US Attorneys like a broad interpretation when it suits/benefits them and a narrow one when it suits/benefits them.

Other than being consistent assholes, they have never found consistency to be worth much.

boatbuilder said...

The people who actually trespassed and broke things should have been charged, convicted and either paid fines, served appropriate time (30 days?) or done "community service."

The people who were waved in by the marshals should have been given a handshake and an apology.

The idea that anyone who didn't physically assault an officer or public official has been charged with serious crimes is an embarrassment to this Country. The level of vindictiveness in the pursuit of these cases is shameful.

Rusty said...

Mark said...
"Mr. Trump’s case did not come up at the argument

But how many people are going to make it all about Trump? As everything always is and must be."
Well, you for one. If Trump weren't around you'd have nothing to talk about. Your whole presence here depends on Trump.

Heatshield said...

Let's say Trump is elected and this law is allowed to stand. Will opinions change about the interpretation of this law? Dems were really happy about blowing up the filibuster to get their judges through. Not so happy when the Supreme Court flipped 6-3. This use of lawfare could also blow up in their faces. We are headed down a very bad path.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Two of Jack Smith’s four felony charges against Trump rely on the statute argued in this hearing. It is most definitely about prosecutors over-reaching, and that means it includes Trump. More to come tomorrow!

Enigma said...

@Heatshield: This use of lawfare could also blow up in their faces. We are headed down a very bad path.

We are at the point where the left has completed their 1930s to 1970s agenda and now scrape around to find a reason to continue. They adopted ends-justifies-the-means lawfare (e.g., they wanted to pack the SC) in the 1930s too. The big change is that the right responded, but it took decades to deliver effective counter lawfare (i.e., with Trump, six conservative SC justices).

The left now hates the "democracy" bed they made, so they shifted to wanting a totalitarian system. They frequently contradict their own very recent public positions (e.g., freedom of thought, religion, immigration, military spending, etc.). The left's way out is to surrender to SOME status quo: pick anything stick with it. Without some ground truth they'll flail around in endless anarchy.

Rusty said...

Mark said...
"Mr. Trump’s case did not come up at the argument

But how many people are going to make it all about Trump? As everything always is and must be."
This is an interesting comment coming from you. Since you and your friends on this blog always go through great pains to make every thread about Trump. Why are you taking this stance now? What are you trying to make us believe?