Back in 2021, as the Department of Justice was looking around for the best way to prosecute the January 6 insurrectionists, one of the tools they landed on was charging the rioters with "obstructing an official proceeding." A guy named Joseph Fischer was convicted on this basis but appealed on the grounds that the law prevented only the destruction of documents, not physical violence in the Capitol.
Fischer lost his case, but the Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal. However, it's a little hard to make out what Fischer's case is. The definition of obstruction comes from the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which states:
(c) Whoever corruptly—
(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or
(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
How much clearer can you get? The law specifically mentions destruction of documents and then explicitly adds that it also includes any other attempt to obstruct official proceedings. This is about as broad a definition as you can get.
This isn't a big deal except for one thing: It's part of the federal case against Donald Trump for the activities of January 6. If the Supreme Court upholds Fischer's appeal then two of the four counts against Trump would get thrown out.
It seems like a long shot to me, but what do I know? Trump has a lot of friends on the Supreme Court these days.
"... any other attempt to obstruct official proceedings. "
Trump is evil. Bad things happening to him don't bother me. But I want to raise a point. I wonder if this might be a case of, be careful for what you wish for.
Under the standard of any attempt to obstruct official proceedings lots of things could be captured. For example, one could claim peaceful protest that blocks doors to a building, or shouting down a speak are forms of obstructing an official proceeding.
I think the literal definition of "any" is a very dangerous standard, and will be misused by someone...
I doubt that will change things much. Sarbanes Oxley has been around for two decades, and not everything is an "official proceeding." Protestors are routinely arrested for trespassing or failure to disperse already, even at non-official things. And it would be hard to get someone convicted for obstructing an official proceeding in most circumstances, because most of the time a peaceful protestor is escorted out and/or arrested so quickly that it would seem like an excessive charge by most juries, not to mention the public. It is very rare that protestors actually stop government from working for multiple hours, and those are the people who would get prosecuted under this.
Sure, I guess you could technically charge someone for going over their 3 minute comment time at the local town council meeting. I just don't think any prosecutor will do it.
This is not a great hook to hang your hat on. But the real shield is the first ammendment. Any 1A activity charged under this law would escape.
Protests that block doors to buildings should be captured. Your right to protest does not outweigh the right of non-participants in the protest to go about their lawful business. Shouting down a speaker is at best extremely bad manners, and in many cases is properly treated as criminal. A civilized person gives the other guy his say and then refutes him if needed.
Nah, they won't even do that. It will be the new Bush v Gore: We want this outcome so we're doing it, but we're specifically saying "Good only for this one time!"
If the SC finds a technicality to let off J6 rioters and Trump, it won't be Bush v. Gore. It will be many orders of magnitude worse.
President Donald doesn't have friends. He has enemies, and he has enemies of his enemies.
I agree that the language is plain as day. I don't think the Supreme Court will overrule.
But what do I know? I think the language below is plain as day also and everyone in the world expects the Supreme Court to rule it doesn't apply to Trump.
I think they’ve almost got to rule in a way that keeps Trump on the ballot everywhere. Otherwise, there’s going to be an enormous amount of pressure to kick him off in blue and purple states that will be hard for Republican judges and elected officials to resist. And it anybody’s guess what happens if kicking him off the ballot triggers violence from conservatives—could swing the election either way.
IOW, you're saying political considerations and threats of violence matter more than the words of the Constitution.
I say, why have a Constitution if you're just going to ignore it when it might be inconvenient for a small, violent minority?
I think at this point the constitution is pretty much just a pointless relic of a bygone age. It’s basically impossible to amend and conservatives have a fixed belief that its meaning must accord with contemporary movement conservatism. But it’s what makes the Supreme Court the final arbiter of everything and as long as conservatives are in control they aren’t going to allow anyone or anything else to change the situation.
Taking your reasoning to its logical conclusion, the Supreme Court is not the final arbiter of everything. Joe Biden is. He's got the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines, and if he wants to be president for life, who's going to stop him?
I can get cynical at times too, but I think we're in a better country when we don't treat the Constitution as if it's a "pointless relic of a bygone age."
For most of my life I’ve revered the Constitution but the reality of our present situation is undeniable. For all but a brief period during the 1950’s and 1960’s the Supreme Court has been an a nearly insurmountable obstacle to almost all social justice or liberalism. And the constitution remains all but impossible to make truly relevant to the 21st century.
I honestly think that we’d been better off without it so that we can no longer be forced to govern our lives and our society in accordance with what a group of extremely corrupt right wing judges think about the 18th century and how the framers value neatly aligned with today’s movement conservatism.
But, as a practical matter, Joe Biden doesn’t have the power to rule as a dictator without a legal system. The Constitution is the law of the land— it’s sort of the physical embodiment of the social contract. If we are to eliminate it or bring it up to date, this process must be accepted by the people and it must also comport with the Constitution itself. A good and meaningful place to start would be to abolish the electoral college altogether.
I think they should rule in a way that keeps Trump off the general election ballot everywhere. The various states can play their silly games with laws governing primaries that are so badly written that people who are ineligible for an office can still run in the primary for that office, but that shouldn't happen in the general. SCOTUS should rule that Trump is disqualified from the presidency and so cannot be on the general election ballot for president anywhere in the US.
I think if the Republicans on the court can do something nice for people they see as “hostages” they will. And they’ll also try to craft a narrow exception for Trump, too. The Republicans on the court are almost completely unmoored from precedent and normal methods of statutory interpretation so the only constraint is whether they think their decision will trigger a backlash against their party in 2024. I think that’s the only thing that matters to them.
Oh, if only that it WOULD "trigger a backlash". But the poor beset "independents" are paying more for that Snickers bar they buy several times a week, according to The NY Crimes, and THAT's what matters, right? Independents will be the last to go, just as some "Good Germans" had to wait until 1944 before THEY got their invigorating whiff of Zyklon B.
But get their whiff they will.
We all must pay for our choices. Maybe diabetes with the Snickers Bar. Maybe He’ll on earth with Trump. But I think you’re right that the “independents” who based their vote on the price of a Snickers Bar will surely pay. Unfortunately, however, their bill will come due after ours.
they'll come down with some variation of "while the constitution says 'insurrection', we believe this was more of a coup, and the founders were notably silent on coups"
They couldn't outlaw coups cuz there are too many of them. There's the coup d'etat and the coup de grace ... and the coup-coup clock ... and coups-coups with fresh herbs and tomatoes ... and of course, the little deuce coup (you don't know what I got). Eh, s-coups-y moi?
Other words unfound among the words in the Constitution: pooch and putsch. Too confusing.
There wasn't ONE document destroyed during the Capitol occupation? Not even ONE? That seems a stretch, and so, even though every violent intruder didn't destroy that / those document(s) themself, they ARE "accessories" to its destruction.
So, IF the Subprime's get pedantic, there's an equal pedantry which "Trumps" their pedantry, though, sadly, there's no higher court to which to appeal.
The "Through the looking glass" strict textualists will have no problem voiding Fischer's conviction. The words in the Constitution and statutes mean exactly what they want them to mean, nothing more and nothing less, and they don't have to have the same meaning all the time.
Sounds like a "major question" and if congress had intended to include violently storming the capitol building, by god they would have written that.
That's the law *as written* but we all know that our vaunted legal profession uses precedent all the time - no matter how ridiculous - and surely there's an obscure decision sometime in the past that SCOTUS can point to and say, "See! This was settled a long time ago. No charges can be made." -
I'm a civil law fan and consider common law wooly and imprecise.
https://www.diffen.com/difference/Civil_Law_vs_Common_Law
The one thing about the Trump 1512(c)(2) charges is that the case involves documents (the fake elector certificates). Even if the court says that it can't believe that congress meant what it said, I don't see a problem with the Trump 1512 charges.
Overturning this means overturning most of the other people who were convicted or pleaded guilty.
8-1 with the lone dissenter being Thomas, on account of Ginni's participation in behind the scenes planning. And no, he will not recuse himself because of Ginni.
We’ve already been through this 10 years ago with a similar provision of Sarbanes Oxley (sec 1519). In that case there was a similarly broad provision added by Sarbsnes Oxley criminalizing the destruction or concealment of "any record, document, or tangible object" to obstruct a federal investigation. Yates destroyed a fish, which was evidence of a violation of fishing regulations. He was charged under 1519, since, you know, a fish is a “tangible object”. The Supreme Court held that Sarbanes Oxley has to do with records of financial fraud, not fish. And thus 1519 didn’t apply even though the plain words of the statute apply to any tangible object. The opinion was by Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I’d say the same result should be here - section 1512 is about witness tampering (that’s the title of the law), not walking into the Capitol, and thus the overly broad language doesn’t apply to this conduct.
The record says that Trump has exactly zero friends on the Supreme Court. He pretty much always loses when his cases go there. I think the court will do what is best for the Republican Party, and they may well conclude that means getting rid of Trump. It is NOT a foregone conclusion that Trump will win the 14th amendment battle.
I hear people say this alot. I really don't think it says anything at all about the court's partisanship and its capacity do what it wants inspite of clear facts and obvious reasoning. It is just that Trump has brought so many simply laughable cases to them they could not bear the humilation.
When the stakes are high enough and the straws a bit closer, they will grasp them
I've agreed that the court is clearly partisan, but I think they're Republican partisans, not Trump partisans.
None of it matters. Let’s be real. There’s absolutely zero chance of a clean (ie, post appeal) conviction before the November election. Once we get to that point, it’s up to the voters. If they elect Trump, he moves into the White House regardless of any criminal proceedings against him still pending.
I should add: the only truly substantive Trump case before federal courts at this point is the Washington State ballot matter. Everything else is nibbling around the edges. The criminal justice system will not, and cannot, save us. If the Supreme Court declines to declare Trump ineligible for the presidency under the 14th amendment, then our last line of defense is general election voters.
Kevin says "How much clearer can you get? The law specifically mentions destruction of documents and then explicitly adds that it also includes any other attempt to obstruct official proceedings. This is about as broad a definition as you can get."
What you're missing is that the case centers around the presence of the qualifier "corruptly." The way the law is written, "corruptly" appears to apply to both clauses. So the question is whether the obstruction is "corrupt", whatever that means.