Would you like my opinion on the other big court case of the day (so far)? Actually, you already have it. I wrote about it six months ago.
A quick recap: the Sarbanes-Oxley bill makes it a crime to destroy evidence needed in an "official proceeding." It also says that anyone who "otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding" can be fined or imprisoned. Italics mine.
This use of otherwise strikes me as the plainest of intent. It means doing anything else to obstruct an official proceeding. For example, invading the Capitol building, destroying property, and terrorizing everyone inside. That seems pretty obstruction-y, doesn't it?
But no. The majority opinion today spends more than a dozen tedious pages litigating exactly what otherwise means, because apparently the plain black letter language of the law isn't good enough in this case. With apologies, though, I don't have the energy right now to plow through it all. The syllabus alone is two dense pages solely about what otherwise means.
The impact of this ruling is probably minimal. A few of the January 6 insurrectionists will now be let off, but most of them were convicted of other charges too. Ditto for Donald Trump. Two of the charges against him in the January 6 case will have to be dropped, but there are others. The real-world fallout is likely to be small.
so now we can break down doors and smash windows in the supreme court building?
good to know
I would assume it's hunky-dory to "bear arms" into the Court as well. I mean, FREEDUMB!
To summarize today's rulings:
1) Courts are better at making decisions about what laws mean than government agencies.
2) Here is an example of a court making a ridiculous decision about what a law means.
They really do tie themselves up in knots to get their desired outcome.
I feel like we just have tricameral legislature now with one body chosen for life. Like under Napoleon they had a rubber-stamp legislature, senate and "tribunat". Wikipedia says "They were chosen via a complex process by the Senate from the 'national lists of notables' " – sounds the same.
So I can now turn up at any public meeting, throw junk around and create a general melee and it's all perfectly legal?
Gumming up the works as long as I can keep standing, and --oh, now I get it --it's a filibuster!
Totally legit parliamentary procedure.
They should name this ruling after John Roberts as Roberts' Rule of Disorder.
+1!
"It means doing anything else to obstruct an official proceeding."
Respectfully, anything would be a low bar and extremely dangerous. For example, a Gaza protest, BLM protest etc that makes a member of Congress late to a vote/miss a vote would, potentially, be a felony. The potential to weaponize this law would be huge!
It is precded by "Whoever corruptly", and this obviously applies to both part the clause. So it will always require proving to the jury that it was "corruptly". That is not a low bar.
Many reprots omit the "Whoever corruptly" bit, but it is there and it is essential part of it.
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section1512&num=0&edition=prelim
Yehouda - thank you for the additional insight. While you raise an interesting point, I could still see a Trump lead justice department applying this law, absent the new limit, inappropriately.
They will do that with any law you can have.
The laws (including constitution) and the courts aren't going to stop Trump from doing what he wants if he gets to be president.
Radical centrism is so tiresome.
I'd like to go into why this decision will be remembered for its idiocy. Start with a preceding subsection, 18 U.S. Code § 1512 (b):
Now compare it to the subsection, 18 U.S. Code § 1512 (c) that followed:
According to the majority, the use of otherwise was meant to make subsection (2) reference to effecting an impediment onto a record, document, or object that was not identified in subsection (1). Well if that were the case, then why wasn't it also used in 18 U.S. Code § 1512 (b)? Surely, if Congress intended subsection (2) to complete subsection (1), they would have done the same to the preceding section. And therein is where the flaw of their argument expose the bullshit of this Court.
This Roberts Court is just full of shit.
Don't get me wrong. I understand why this entire subsection is problematic in general. But this is not how you'd fix it. The Roberts Court is overreaching here, and that's why they had to spend several pages explaining the meaning of otherwise.
"This Roberts Court is just full of shit."
This apply to Jackson who agreed with the conservatives here.
"... The peaceful transfer of power is a fundamental democratic norm, and those who attempted to disrupt it in this way inflicted a deep wound on this Nation. But today’s case is not about the immorality of those acts. Instead, the question before this Court is far narrower: What is the scope of the particular crime Congress has outlined in 18 U. S. C. §1512(c)(2)?"
Gorsuch, Thomas and Alito always claim to be textualists. So when the text of a statute disagrees with their preferred opinion they simply resort to bald face lying. Claiming a statute that explicitly endorses vaccine mandates didn't really mean it, or a bill that explicitly states the president has the power to unilaterally modify loan terms doesn't actually allow that or that contain clauses that don't mention documents must only apply to documents.