[CFW]

The oral arguments this morning were quite interesting to listen to as several justices questions surprised me. It was funny when one Justice (Roberts?) brought up the hypothetical as to whether interrupting a SCOTUS hearing would apply under the statute. The Government's attorney responded "no" for some reason. Liberal protests were all protected by the First Amendment. It seemed her position was that anything done by a liberal wouldn't come under the statute in question but any protest by a conservative naturally would. Justice Jackson even asked a couple of questions indicating she was skeptical of the government's positions.

You can read the transcript or listen to the replay of the hearing this morning at:

Fischer v USA oral argument

[vpintheak]

Yeah but its different this time, because “Trump deserves it!” As I’ve heard from several leftists about anything relating to Trump.

[Tench_Coxe]

Neil Gorsuch: "Would pulling a fire alarm before a vote, qualify for 20 years in federal prison?"

🤣

[iontheball]

The Supremes not only need to throw out the J-6 obstruction of justice charges but they must give all the prosecutors, the judges and the jury Marxists in the case a royal ass whipping for their selective prosecution and treasonous abuse of the justice system.

[MeanWestTexan]

In the Constitution, there is a prohibition of “ex post facto” crimes. That is, the crime has to be a law before you can be convicted of breaking it. Basically, no making something illegal after it is already done.

An important aspect of “no ex post facto” protection is criminal statutes have to be read NARROWLY in favor of a potential defendant, such that, if a person could read it ahead of time and reasonably determine that what he or she is doing is not a crime, then it is not a crime. This is especially true if the prosecutor’s approach is novel, never been done before, or being selectively applied.

All of the Trump charges and all of the J6 charges are the polar opposite of this basic Constitutional protection. The prosecutors are trying twisted, obscure, version of the statutes, never done before, and only selectively applying them to their political opponents.

It’s absolute garbage and a travesty of the legal system

[AndyJackson]

Gorsuch is not a judge. He is a justice.

[mass55th]

It was the a-hole Congressmen who chose to interrupt the proceeding. There was no threat to their lives, and the session in which they voted for Joe’s fraudulent electors could have continued.

[cowboyusa]

Now through the fib agents in jail.

[Revel]

These kinds of article bug me. I listened to most of the arguments and the justices gave both sides a hard time.

The first lawyer for J6 Defendants did a terrible job. Missing many opportunities to make good points. The lady for the government was like an AI bot. Alito did a better job of pointing out the problems by giving examples of where the law could go after anyone if it was interpenetrated as the government has done. But ACB was almost hostile in defending the broad reading of the law by the government. Once again she is not on the side of what is right.

Anyone who wants to hear the arguments should look up the video from Viva today on Rumble.