Connect with us

News

Amy Coney Barrett Says Court Made ‘Textual Backflips’ to Protect January 6 Rioters

Published

on

Amy Coney Barrett

Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett slammed the Supreme Court for making “textual backflips” in justifying its ruling to limit the prosecution of January 6 rioters for obstruction.

Friday morning, the Court issued its ruling in Fischer v. United States, which rules that the law against the obstruction of official proceedings applies to only those rioters who “impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding, or attempted to do so,” according to Chief Justice John Roberts’ ruling.

The ruling was 6-3, but not along ideological lines. The conservative justices other than Barrett were joined by liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, while Barrett wrote the dissent, and was joined by the other two liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

READ MORE: Trump Falsely Says Mike Pence Is to ‘Blame’ for Violence on January 6

“As the Solicitor General acknowledged at oral argument, under the Government’s interpretation, a peaceful protester could conceivably be charged… and face a 20-year sentence,” Roberts wrote. “And the Government would likewise have no apparent obstacle to prosecuting… any lobbying activity that ‘influences’ an official proceeding and is undertaken ‘corruptly.’

Jackson concurred, but in her opinion she wrote that she agreed with the ruling based on the law, but was unconvinced that it necessarily applied to many January 6 defendants. She said that would be up to lower courts to decide.

“Joseph Fischer was charged with… corruptly obstructing ‘a proceeding before Congress, specifically, Congress’s certification of the Electoral College vote,” she wrote. “That official proceeding plainly used certain records, documents, or objects—including, among others, those relating to the electoral votes themselves.”

Barrett’s dissent argued that the congressional joint session to go over the electoral votes was obviously an “official proceeding,” and tried to force an end to said proceeding.

“Fischer’s alleged conduct (which includes trespassing and a physical confrontation with law enforcement) was part of a successful effort to forcibly halt the certification of the election results. Given these premises, the case that Fischer can be tried for ‘obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding’ seems open and shut. So why does the Court hold otherwise?” Barrett asked.

“Because it simply cannot believe that Congress meant what it said. Section 1512(c)(2) is a very broad provision, and admittedly, events like January 6th were not its target. (Who could blame Congress for that failure of imagination?) But statutes often go further than the problem that inspired them, and under the rules of statutory interpretation, we stick to the text anyway. The Court, abandoning that approach, does textual backflips to find some way—any way—to narrow the reach of subsection (c)(2). I respectfully dissent.”

Attorney General Merrick Garland also condemned the ruling in a statement, calling January 6 an “unprecedented attack on the cornerstone” of government. Garland added that the ruling would not affect the “vast majority” of January 6 defendants.

Similarly, special council Jack Smith, said that Friday’s ruling will not affect the election interference case against former President Donald Trump, according to the Associated Press. The ruling will affect approximately half of the 50 defendants still serving out their sentences for their roles in the January 6 riots, the AP reported.

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

Trump ‘Laser-Focused’ on Affordability Says White House After Calling It a ‘Hoax’

Published

on

The White House says President Donald Trump has been “laser-focused on making America affordable” since taking office. Just one month ago, President Trump called affordability a “hoax” perpetrated by Democrats.

President Trump has recently attempted to preserve his sweeping tariffs amid Supreme Court review, has engaged in foreign policy messaging involving Venezuela, Iran, and Greenland — including promoting himself as the “acting President of Venezuela” — and has responded sharply to protests involving federal officers.

The president campaigned on lowering the cost of living on “day one,” but nearly 51 weeks into his second term, inflation remains high.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told Fox News that the president would travel to Detroit on Tuesday to deliver a speech about “all of the positive economic news that we continue to see as a result of his agenda.”

READ MORE: ‘Organized Gangs of Wine Moms’ Are Impeding Federal Agents Says Fox Columnist

“So tomorrow, he looks forward to traveling to the great state of Michigan, a state he won big, to not only tour a factory that produces Ford F-150s, and is going to be hiring more, and producing more trucks right here in the USA because of President Trump’s effective tariff policies,” Leavitt said.

Trump narrowly won Michigan, taking less than half of the vote and besting Vice President Kamala Harris by 1.4 percentage points.

Leavitt said that “mortgage rates that are falling under 6% for the first time in years,” “the national average of gasoline is the lowest that it’s been in five years,” and core inflation is “at its lowest level in five years.”

She suggested that “with a little bit of patience, the American people are going to continue to see that the best is yet to come,” and claimed that Trump “has a proven economic formula that works.”

Leavitt also said that Trump has a housing plan “in the works” and a healthcare plan “in the works,” and vowed that Americans will “continue to hear from the president, and he’ll continue to hit the road across the country to speak directly with the people he loves most, the American people.”

READ MORE: Trump ‘Losing Political Fight’ to Fed Chair: Analyst

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

Trump DOJ Fires Attorney Who Refused to Prosecute James Comey

Published

on

The Trump Department of Justice has terminated a 64-year old attorney, the number-two official in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia, after he refused to prosecute former FBI Director James Comey in a highly-controversial case.

MS NOW on Monday reported that Robert McBride, a senior DOJ prosecutor and former Navy lawyer, “was brought into the prominent satellite office of the Justice Department to serve as first assistant to U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan and took a more prominent role as her status was in question and after a judge ruled in late November that she was not legally appointed to run the office.”

McBride reportedly had held private meetings with judges, MS NOW reported, calling it a move that was “viewed as undermining the Administration.”

He had declined to prosecute Comey, sources said, reportedly telling top Justice Department officials that it would be difficult to do that and also run the office.

MS NOW’s Carol Leonnig added that McBride was also suspected of “gunning for” the top job.

The New York Times reported that there was a “disagreement about whether he would take charge of the Trump administration’s effort to re-indict James B. Comey,” and called McBride’s firing “the latest development in the fallout in the Justice Department over President Trump’s effort to punish Mr. Comey, the former F.B.I. director and his longtime nemesis, whom the president blames for past investigations of his conduct.”

The Times added that meeting with judges is considered “commonplace.”

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

News

‘Screwed’: Trump Warns Supreme Court on Tariffs

Published

on

With many Americans awaiting a Supreme Court decision on the sweeping Trump tariffs and some experts believing the Court will rule on them any day nowpossibly as soon as Wednesday — the president is once again sending a clear warning to the justices: allow the tariffs or America is “screwed.”

During the November oral arguments, liberal and conservative justices appeared skeptical of the administration’s claim it has the power to impose global tariffs by declaring a national emergency.

President Trump has repeatedly said the tariffs are necessary for national security, and said that if the court does not allow them the U.S. would be in no position to give refunds of billions of dollars. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent late last week said refunds “won’t be a problem.”

Trump on Monday appeared to disagree.

READ MORE: ‘Organized Gangs of Wine Moms’ Are Impeding Federal Agents Says Fox Columnist

“The actual numbers that we would have to pay back if, for any reason, the Supreme Court were to rule against the United States of America on Tariffs, would be many Hundreds of Billions of Dollars,” Trump wrote on Truth Social Monday afternoon. It is possible the Court could rescind the Trump tariffs and not require refunds.

The president then added that “the amount of ‘payback’ that Countries and Companies would require for the Investments they are making on building Plants, Factories, and Equipment, for the purpose of being able to avoid the payment of Tariffs. When these Investments are added, we are talking about Trillions of Dollars!”

He claimed any negative ruling would create “a complete mess,” and make it “almost impossible for our Country to pay.”

Despite his Treasury Secretary’s remarks, Trump added, “Anybody who says that it can be quickly and easily done would be making a false, inaccurate, or totally misunderstood answer to this very large and complex question.”

“It may not be possible but, if it were, it would be Dollars that would be so large that it would take many years to figure out what number we are talking about and even, who, when, and where, to pay,” he claimed.

And he warned point-blank, “if the Supreme Court rules against the United States of America on this National Security bonanza, WE’RE SCREWED!”

READ MORE: Trump ‘Losing Political Fight’ to Fed Chair: Analyst

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.