Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[THE_WIZARD_]

lucid

[iam416]

Need to read that decision closely but the difference between Roberts and ACB is interesting. Seems like another case where one side wants to read something literally (ACB), and the other is using context (Roberts) to say the law can't possibly mean that. Roberts concedes on page 16 that the law can be read literally to allow these prosecutions, but he doesn't believe Congress intended it to be read that way.

23-5572 Fischer v. United States (06/28/2024) (supremecourt.gov)

Convictions will be overturned. I don't think this will make it literally impossible to retry them, but the burden of proof (on the govt) is much higher now if I understand it correctly.

Ironically, the Fischer guy who brought this suit might not benefit a ton. He was convicted of six other charges, including assaulting an officer.

The fact that this is a criminal case is fairly significant. As with the case decided yesterday, the Court -- at least the majority -- is uncomfortable with reading criminal statutes as broadly as possible to convict people. I think in criminal statute cases they are going to very careful to use "literal" to expand the statute well beyond what any ordinary reader would think it means.

Now, in contrast, they were fine with doing that in the Title VII case to say "because of sex" includes sexual orientation.

But anyone who reads this statute knows that it's about destruction of evidence. It's not broad enough to -- as Gorsuch pointed out at oral argument -- capture Bowman's pulling of the fire alarm -- even thought, literally, it is.

[Dr. Strangelove]

A thought on Trump’s own obstruction charges. Initial reaction seems to be this decision will help dozens of low tier Jan 6th people but probably not Trump.

[Dr. Strangelove]

One final Supreme Court nugget: Steve Bannon reports to prison on Monday. CJ Roberts will almost definitely say one way or the other this afternoon if they will intervene to prevent that (it's a likely no)

[THE_WIZARD_]

Yes because silly rabbit only dems can avoid contempt of congress charges...silly boy...

[Dr. Strangelove]

Both Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino got referred to DOJ for contempt and DOJ declined to prosecute either one. Because neither of them were as stupid as Bannon/Navarro to refuse any cooperation whatsoever.

[THE_WIZARD_]

Hunter? Garland?

[Dr. Strangelove]

Hunter? Garland?

They never held a vote for Hunter because he ended up testifying. Garland will join Bill Barr as Attorneys General who were held in contempt and nothing happened to them.

[Dr. Strangelove]

The Dems held Bill Barr in contempt in 2019. The next time he saw Nancy Pelosi at some event he jokingly asked if she'd brought her cuffs with her.

[Hannibal]

GRKD-YWWUAAeFuh?format=jpg&name=large.jpg

[Mike]

These were the headlines compiled this morning at RCP:

Screenshot 2024-06-28 141653.jpg

[Dr. Strangelove]

Jill got the uppers mixed up with the downers. Give him another chance.

[Mike]

image.png

[THE_WIZARD_]

[Mike]

We get to do it all again on Tuesday September 10, 2024. If Biden is still alive, of course.