204
Conservative SCOTUS Justices: Why isn't DOJ treating Dobbs protesters like January 6 attackers?
(www.motherjones.com)
this post was submitted on 17 Apr 2024
204 points (94.3% liked)
politics
19097 readers
3979 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Medical examiners determined that it wasn't blunt force trauma, so now the only other explanation was pepper spray... so, do you really think pepper spray is what killed him? Or do you think that there were a lot of officers there, and people die daily, and he happened to die after the events but that weren't directly connected or there was no evidence of a connection? Is it possible you want him to have died because of Jan 6 events so that you can point your finger and say look how evil those Jan 6 people were?
Multiple cops were beaten that day. Do you suppose the insurrectionists were holding back? They were obviously trying to kill police, on camera. We all saw what happened. You're making excuses for them. You're whatabouting for them.
No I'm not. I don't disagree some of them were there for that purpose. If they had a gun, plans, texts, etc that shows that was their intention to basically harm those certifying the election then sure charge them with the federal law the article is talking about. But just cause they went into the Capitol building doesn't mean they all had the same intentions.
Normal tourist visit, huh?
That's not how prosecution and evidence works. You can't just say cause they entered the Capitol building that they were all their to hang Pence, or kill Pelosi. You need actual evidence. Otherwise, what will happen is that you'll go to a peaceful protest and some agitator will do some crime and suddenly you'll be getting arrested saying you were there for the same purpose.
Yeah, the way it works is that a bunch of inbred hayseeds try to install Trump as dictator, and because you wish they had succeeded, you downplay what they did and pretend that the Supreme Court still has legitimacy.
The Supreme Court hasn't had much legitimacy for much longer than you realize. They've been taking away consumer and workers rights for decades. You just haven't realized it until recently when it has become a hot topic and now it is easier to blame Republicans, but overlook everything else.
They've been more shameless about it. As in this case, where they're pretending that obstructing a government proceeding applies only to documents, and where you're pretending that anything other than ignoring the statute entirely requires enshrining guilt by association into law.
I'm not sure how or whether you gather that they are pretending that obstructing a government proceeding only applies to documents, but that isn't what I gathered at all. I made two major points...
Because I actually read the article instead of immediately being like "buh whuubut BLM?!??!?!"
So what did it say then cause it doesn't say what you're suggesting
It's in the article that you ignored because you'd rather demonize BLM. Don't bother me again.
Not it isn't but fine by me. Have a good pipedream
From the article you will never read:
The court is sympathetic to this bullshit argument. Since it's not demonizing black people, you ignored it.
Expecting you to quit whatabouting for Trump's inbred violent minions is a bit of an unrealistic expectation, yes.
Where do you gather that the court is sympathetic to the argument? The justices are literally questioning the other components of the same law which clearly involves more than documents. The justices do not indicate that they believe it only pertains to destroying/tampering with documents, and I have no clue how you could gather that from the article.
You've admitted they're illegitimate already. They're sympathetic to any argument as long as its application yields results Republicans want.
Because they want to limit the scope of the law to documents only. Why would they question the part of the law they want to keep?
The part of the law they are questioning has to do with actual actions/violence to prevent official proceedings. They are questioning the scope of the other parts, not saying that they intend to exclude it entirely. They can't make up new laws. They can only interpret them. Yes, they can have poor interpretations, but they'd seriously struggle trying to exclude things entirely without having uproar throughout the federal court system which comprises of several liberal judges as well.
This thread is now 4 days old, and the comment to which you responded is two days old.
You are trying to waste my time, and I'm not going to participate in this discussion any longer.