The problem with this statute is that it is applied in a partisan way. Activities which might be protected under the Bill of Rights can be prosecuted. And whoever controls the prosecutor's office is the one who decides whether or not it's protected.
Posted on 04/16/2024 11:54:20 AM PDT by libstripper
The Supreme Court spent about an hour and a half on Tuesday morning arguing over whether to make it much harder for the Justice Department to prosecute hundreds of people who joined the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol.
It appears, after Tuesday’s arguments, that a majority of the justices will side with the insurrectionists — though it is far from clear how those justices will justify such an outcome.
The case, known as Fischer v. United States, involved a federal law which provides that anyone who “obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so” commits a very serious federal felony and can be imprisoned for up to 20 years — although, as Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar pointed out during Tuesday’s argument, actual sentences against January 6 defendants convicted under this statute have been much shorter, normally ranging from a little less than one year to slightly over two years.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
There was no “insurrection”, and they were not “insurrectionists”.
Just another day in the land of lies.
“anyone who ‘obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so’ commits a very serious federal felony and can be imprisoned for up to 20 years.
Yeah, 20 years is a little excessive.
Isnt that why they’re being charged with “obstruction” instead of insurrection.... lol
Vox is a liberal rear facing Oraface. I’m sure it was difficult for them to write that.
insurrectionists?
No such thing happened.
Vox and the writer are assholes.
5.56mm
I had to go to the very last paragraph but they ended it with pissing on the SCOTUS.
“If nothing else, this is a terrible look for the Supreme Court. And it suggests that many of the justices’ concerns about free speech depend on whether they agree with the political views of the speaker.”
They will justify it Ian Millhiser, because there was no insurrection. See how easy that is? If you actually possessed a functioning brain, you wouldn’t have even needed to ask such a stupid question in the first place.
Way too broad. 20 years is way too much.
Arguing or hearing arguments.
The article is clearly left biased.
The problem with this statute is that it is applied in a partisan way. Activities which might be protected under the Bill of Rights can be prosecuted. And whoever controls the prosecutor's office is the one who decides whether or not it's protected.
There was no “official proceeding,” either, as the Senate shut itself down before people came in.
Ad Ian to the Helocopter list.
“insurrectionists” = protestors who dared to enter the serpents den/satan’s command post.
Snotty assed bastard.
Someone has to pay for the anguish and suffering of false accusations.
Furthermore, I believe that someone committed suicide due to such an accusation and a murder inside the Capitol; all for a dirty plot to hide the gigantic fraud of the democratic party
libs only respect the court when it favors them. Of course I feel the same way. However, the J6 are political prisoners.
If it was ANTIFA or BLM terrorist in the clink, there would have been more riots, arson and death.
“...insurrectionists”
aaaand... there went the author’s credibility.
Is justice supposed to be blind?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.