Supreme Court to Hear Case That Could Release J6ers

The New American ^ | March 13, 2024 | Rebecca Terrell

[E. Pluribus Unum]

SCOTUS disappointed Trump’s political enemies, too, when it agreed late last month to review lower-court rulings that rejected his claims of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution. They’ll hear oral arguments in that case on April 22, about the same time that the DOJ had hoped to be convicting the former president.

But another J6 case, ignored in major media, is scheduled to be heard next month, too, on April 16. Its outcome could significantly reduce the sentences of J6ers, even to the point of releasing some from prison immediately.

In Fischer v. USA, SCOTUS will decide whether DOJ lawfully applied a section of U.S. Code known prosaically as 1512(c)(2).

It was added in the wake of the Enron scandal in 2002 and prohibits tampering with evidence or obstructing an official proceeding. The statute was written because executives at the corrupt energy company had ordered employees to shred incriminating documents. Conviction carries a prison sentence of up to 20 years.

Previous case law shows a precedent of applying 1512(c) only to judicial proceedings. There is another section of federal law — namely 1505 — that applies to obstruction of proceedings before other bodies, such as Congress, but it carries a sentence of not more than five years — four times lighter than 1512(c).

In what appears to be massive judicial collusion, judges in J6 cases ignored precedent and repeatedly referenced one another’s cases to justify the use of 1512(c)(2) against J6ers.

[CatOwner]

If the SCOTUS has any integrity remaining. A solid majority appears to have little to none.

[wardamneagle]

They don’t have the balls….

[Dr. Franklin]

In what appears to be massive judicial collusion, judges in J6 cases ignored precedent and repeatedly referenced one another’s cases to justify the use of 1512(c)(2) against J6ers.

That's called judicial misconduct, and it's what federal judges do far too often. Judges who can't follow precedent, or declare their decisions are "not precedential" are in the wrong line of work. They should be disciplined, and judicial discipline does not require impeachment.

[Signalman]

Everyone should be released and replaced with Liz Cheney and her corrupt cohorts on the J6 committee. Give them each 20 years on the rockpile.

[joesbucks]

Could be wrong, but I don’t see them overturning the convictions.

[joesbucks]

Give me a law that legitimately could be applied and I’ll agree with you.

[Gay State Conservative]

later

[Dead Corpse]

The Chevron re-visit was supposed to be released last October. I feel like they are kicking the can as far down the road as possible on that one. Going to be a huge can of worms to open no matter which way to fall..

But... way past due time. A bad decision like that shouldn’t stand for 40+ years.

[Dead Corpse]

stare decisis is Latin for "lazy jurisprudence".

Each case should be decided on it's individual merits. Anyone thinking that something that happened in a case 200 years ago has anything other than historical interest in a case today is trying very hard not to think for themselves.

Then again... I still think our entire legal code needs to be burned on a pyre and we start over with a fresh copy of the Constitution and a blank slate.

[TexasFreeper2009]

they all need to be released and pardoned, then they all new to sue the government for billions.

[cgbg]

J6 was a COINTELPRO operation.

The political prisoners should be set free—and the government officials that set them up should be the ones in jail.

[Salman]

If they are released, next step is sue the bastards. There will certainly be lawyers lined up to do it on contingency. Or possibly a class action.

[GOPJ]

bttt

[TalBlack]

Deprivation of rights under color of authority. And unless people responsible are charged and convicted and jailed they can just do it again. This isn’t a question of the meaning or intent of a law as often comes before the court this is a crime of the First Magnitude.

[Dr. Franklin]

stare decisis is Latin for "lazy jurisprudence".

You failed Latin. stare decisis means "to stand by decided matters", and it is the foundation of the common law. Unlike most of the world which has a legal system based on the Napoleonic Code which attempts to codify the law for every possible, the common law depends upon judges deciding a case to "declare the law" in a decision. When the law applied is different based upon who someone is, or their personal or political beliefs, the result is tyranny.

Each case should be decided on it's individual merits. Anyone thinking that something that happened in a case 200 years ago has anything other than historical interest in a case today is trying very hard not to think for themselves.

The law that is applied to each case depends on the facts. The law does change through the centuries, but if it changes, it must change for everyone equally. Otherwise, what passes for law is just the arbitrary and capricious acts of judges declaring their own prejudices. Admittedly, it has become rare to find judges who apply the law without bias. The Trump cases are prime examples of the law changing because of who someone is.

Then again... I still think our entire legal code needs to be burned on a pyre and we start over with a fresh copy of the Constitution and a blank slate.

Actually, the U.S. Constitution itself effected a change to the existing common law system, as the Anti-Federalists warned. Before the federal era started, juries were more autonomous and could check judges and prosecutors more readily. See the Zenger trial accounts when Zenger's attorney, Andrew Hamilton, appealed to the jury to note the judge's refusal to permit evidence:
"And as we are denied the liberty of giving evidence to prove the truth of what we have published, I will beg leave to lay it down as a standing rule in such cases that the suppressing of evidence ought always to be taken for the strongest evidence; and I hope it will have that weight with you."
If a modern attorney did that in court today, the consequences from the judge would be severe. Before the U.S. Constitution, it was the successful arguments attorneys made to juries which were widely published in the U.S. case reporters, not what the judges said the law was. In the Zenger case, it was the jury which decided that the truth was an absolute defense to libel, not the judge.

The jury was also considered a necessary part of any common law appeal, and cases were retried on appeal at the higher court with more judges present. Fears that cases would be ultimately decided by juries of elitists in the federal capital forced the change codified by the Seventh Amendment, and the Judiciary Act of 1789. After the ratification of the U.S. Constitution with its Supreme Court, state supreme courts began declaring law without juries. That didn't happen much before, because the U.S. Constitution changed the legal system so that the state court system mirrored the novel federal system.

[glennaro]

The Democrat/Communist Party politburo cannot have this. A gulag is essential to maintain central control by instilling fear of persecution in the proletariat should they dare start behaving again as a free people.

Total acquiescence and obedience to the Left's secular theology coupled with an elevated level of fear of the politicians and bureaucrats who run the Democrat/Communist Party must be maintained -- whatever it takes -- lest our once-great constitutional Republic, once the envy of the free world, is resurrected and free people hold these tyrants accountable for the misery and suffering they have deliberately caused.

[lurk]

This is not about vacating the sentences. This about the practice of the DC judges multiplying the gravity of the charges and adding years to the sentences.

A guy walks by five cops in to the Capitol on J6, takes a cell phone pic and leaves. They nail him for riot, endangerment and four other things. 15 years in the cell with Brutus and ten years probation.

[Gaffer]

I want ALL of you Justices to remember that recent night at FJB’s SOTU address where he badmouthed you with your abortion decision. Remember it. Show HIM that YOU also have political power like baby killers do. Release the J6’ers!

[bantam]

Free them all!