Supreme Court exposes Biden's selective prosecution of political opponents
By: Joseph Fischer
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
During oral arguments on Tuesday, Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito exposed the Biden administration's inexcusable practice of selective prosecution of protesters and rioters.
The case, Fischer v. United States, involved the contention by Pennsylvanian Joseph Fischer that the charges of "obstruct[ion of] … any official proceeding," based on 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c), should not apply to his actions during the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. Fischer, who also was charged with assaulting police officers, is hardly a sympathetic figure. His claims that he wasn't trying to obstruct or "impede" official (and important) congressional business, in the ordinary (nonlegal) sense of those words, are specious, but Gorsuch and Alito were interested in a point broader than Fischer's particular circumstances.
More than 300, of nearly 1,400 total, other Jan. 6 defendants also have been charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c). The two justices were puzzled by inconsistencies with which President Joe Biden's appointees apply the law and with the wide scope they claim for it against disfavored defendants. Contrarily, when people on the Left, even including members of Congress, disrupt government proceedings, including by use of force, Biden and his officials look the other way.
"Would a sit-in that disrupts a trial or access to a federal courthouse qualify [as illegal obstruction]?" Gorsuch asked Biden's solicitor general, Elizabeth Prelogar. "Would a heckler at today's audience qualify or a heckler at the State of the Union address? Would pulling a fire alarm before a vote qualify for 20 years in federal prison?"
Progressive Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) used the fire alarm stunt before a key spending vote last Sept. 30 and pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge carrying negligible penalties, but he bragged about not being charged for obstructing House proceedings even though that's what he had obviously done when the alarm forced an evacuation. That mandatory mass exit interrupted attempts to ward off a government shutdown.
When Prelogar's attempt to draw distinctions sounded weak and confusing, Gorsuch pressed further. Using the catchphrase favored by liberal news media and others about urban riots, even ones where police were injured, cars were burned, and federal courthouses were significantly damaged, resulting in trial relocations or delays, Gorsuch somewhat mockingly asked why "a mostly peaceful protest … that actually obstructs and impedes an official proceeding for an indefinite period would not be covered."
Prelogar stumbled throughout the questioning, including when Alito picked up on similar themes. At one point, she said that for a criminal charge under the statute at issue, "we would have to have the evidence of intent." Yet it is clear that at least a significant subset of the Jan. 6 rioters, while knowing they should not be in the Capitol, and thus being criminally liable for trespassing or disorderly conduct, were clueless about the congressional proceedings rather than intentionally trying to interfere with them. Yet this administration is throwing the book at scores of them.
The point isn't that the Capitol rioters should avoid all penalties but that the Biden administration is choosing for ideological reasons when and how to apply laws against illicit protests.
Thus it is that in 2020, now-Vice President Kamala Harris advocated a yearlong continuation of the oft-violent post-George Floyd riots while supporting groups that wanted to bail murderers from prison. The Biden Justice Department tries to imprison innocent anti-abortion protesters while letting hundreds of attacks on pro-life centers go unpunished. It targets parents as domestic terrorists while refusing to enforce specific laws against demonstrations at the homes of Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices. Examples of double standards are almost countless.
Not all involve the charge of "obstruct[ing]" a "proceeding," but the trend is clear. In this administration, riots and obstructive protests that support leftist causes or narratives are met with leniency, while demonstrations by conservatives, even non-invasive ones, are penalized severely.
None of this is to say how the Supreme Court should rule on this case and this law. It is to say, though, that Gorsuch and Alito revealed the administration's hypocrisy and unequal justice, unobstructed, for all the world to see.
No personal insults..
Stay on topic. The source is NOT THE TOPIC.
No death wishes of any individual
All of NT's rules apply.
Post your meme's on your own articles. They will be ticketed and deleted.
Calling members "trolls" or ""dishonest" will result in your comment being deleted.
Tags
Who is online
50 visitors
A lot of hypocrisy by the Democrats and the left. Good to see SCOTUS calling them out on it.
The coming ruling will have a big effect on not only many of the Jan 6th protestors but on Donald Trump as well.
With the lack of real justification, there is a very good chance that these "convictions" will be overturned.
As far as Trump, this could / will affect ALL the "charges" he facing.
AKA: A win/win for America.
Hopefully, Trump will pardon them all during his second term
If things work out the way they are supposed to then there would be no need for any pardons. The charges would be expunged. Now, on the tail of that we could see more than 300 lawsuits for wrongful imprisonment.
I'm visualizing a 6-3 decision.
It is unfortunate the US taxpayer will be on the receiving end of any payouts or settlements due to Brandon DOJ and Democrat judges overreaches and abuse of power.
That seems to be a normal thing with the Democrats.
I do to. Then we'd have to put up with the nonsense from those supporting the "3"
Would pulling a fire alarm before a vote qualify for 20 years in federal prison?"
The DOJ's response "is there a D or R after the alarm puller's name,?" was honest, if surprising.
More radio silence from our friends on the left.
You know, the fudge packers, I mean, the court packers
Naturally the left is going to be silent. Their hypocrisy was called out. They have to figure out how they are going to justify all this.
Blame the fact that “elections have consequences” now that it doesn’t favor the narrative they are pushing.
Even if true, so what? Trump has literally said if he was in office and losing in the polls, he would ask his DOJ to indict his opponent. So if Biden wants to go after political opponents, I'm fine with it.
Sorry, here is the direct quote...
So he SAID what Biden is DOING.
The irony. They take Trump out of context, in that he was explaining that was what Biden has done, and now that Biden's set the precedent, as President he could do it as well, in order to attack Trump for merely pointing out how wrong it is that Biden has done.
Who was the target? LOL
How was that out of context? That's EXACTLY what trump said... But that's ok, right Sean? If Biden had said something that retarded you would be on him like trump's shitty diaper.
First, and this should be really obvious, Trump can't run for President again if he wins in 2024.
Second, in context, he's clearly pointing out that's what BIDEN JUST DID and that creates the precedent for the future. Trump is speaking hypothetically of a future incumbent President running for reelection to use the DOJ to attack his opponent.
Biden had said something that retarded you would be on him like trump's shitty diaper.
Biden's literally doing it now. Why would his saying it make any difference?
Then you should include the full quote and not just a part of it.
This seems to be very typical of the Democrat party for the past 10 years or so, they undertake an action without looking at possible consequences down the road. It's very clear if you read the full statement that he was talking about a future president and how they would be able to do this because of the precedent set.
The shear hypocrisy of you bitching about Trump stating he can do what Brandon is actually doing is galling.
Ever stop to think if Brandon and Democrats hadn't set precedent then Trump would have nothing to stand on?
Democrats are supposed to be the party of "free, open, and fair" elections. All of their actions against Trump through lawfare and trying to keep him off state ballots show otherwise. Even more appalling is their efforts to keep all independents off state ballots.
Democrats are trying to turn the US into a more woke, dysfunctional, version of China.
You've bitched and cried that "Trumps a liar" then suddenly he's telling the truth. Give it a rest already.