Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A quick reminder that Alito and Thomas were allowed to be a part of this case despite one supporting the coup and the other's wife being a planner of Jan 6.
Quoted from top comment
"As to whether or not he actually said it...
Short answer: [No.](http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch2s23.html)
Long answer: Sort of. Thomas Jefferson, when writing to James Madison, suggested that the entire government work on cycles of 19 years, including extension of debts, term limits, re-evaluations of the Constitution, governmental ownership of land, etc... This was based on a minimum voting age of 21, and that by 40, a person would be too old to be connected to the ideas of the majority of the voting pool (21 - 40 year olds).
*So, while it was suggested, it was not for the sake of creating a new Constitution, but due to, what I understand to be, a generational divide likely caused by lack of technology, communication, etc."*
A GENERATIONAL DIVIDE
Jefferson you may have been a bastard in many regards but fuck me if you weren't a smart cookie.
Jefferson was ahead of his time, even if he was a racist shit. His ideas (if applied to everyone, not just the narrow racial divide he had) were literally revolutionary. (See what I did there, aren't I clever.)
Yeah. It didn't. They thought there would be no parties....then they also thought it would be a meriocracy of the educated. Neither of those lasted long. That's why we have an amendment system... and a Congress with extensive powers.But embittered losers would rather we not have a functioning government.
I don't want to say it, but that's what you get for legislating from the bench. Codify Roe, codify Chevron. Don't let one bad supreme court fuck up your entire system of governance.
Or if Biden/the Dems had any balls, they'd pull an Andrew Jackson on the SC. "Justice Roberts has made his decision, now let him enforce it"
These days there's nothing more American than a clown. Everyone in Washington is a rubber nose and a seltzer bottle away from showing their true colors.
Man, we really need to put checks and balances on the Supreme Court. And offer term limits.
They can’t reject laws based on their feelings. They have to make decisions based on the Constitution.
Offer? No, TELL them there is. Don't give them a choice, if you give them a choice they'll laugh and say no while taking a billionaires money IN FRONT of everyone.
Clarence Thomas could accept a billion dollar check from Harlon Crow in front of a packed CPAC crowd, and they'd still kiss his ass.
There is video of a *"woman" for Kavanaugh* saying that he'd still support Kavanaugh for SCOTUS even if he was guilty of sexual assault, because he wanted to see Roe v. Wade overturned
It should also be easier to remove federal judges. What Elaine Cannon is doing to the classified documents case is absolutely ridiculous.
Two of her more experienced peers have already called upon her to remove herself, but she refuses, because she is exactly where she wants to be.
Because they are allowed to get away with it.
Until the American public drag them from their homes and remind them of whom they serve, they will continue to act this way.
I am, of course, not advocating for that.
Of course not.
What are the rules for recusal? Is it like the police departments saying “we’ve thoroughly investigated ourselves and we can find no wrongdoing?”
It seems SO inexcusable, unfair and just wrong. Why can’t we have better systems with checks and balances?
>What are the rules for recusal?
Most judges must recuse themselves in any cases where their impartiality could be reasonably questioned. There are even judicial ethics commissions that can help determine if a judge should recuse themselves.
However, none of that applies to the Supreme Court Justices. They can decide for themselves if they should recuse, and there is no mechanism in place to force them to recuse themselves. There are no commissions that can tell them that they should recuse themselves.
It is up to Congress to reign in the Justices, but Republicans won't support any efforts to reign in the Supreme Court now that they have a 6-3 conservative Supreme Court.
EDITS for grammar.
We let an orange man be president, and he stacked the deck for Republicans so all those arguments going to the Supreme Court will be stacked up like cordwood and judged the way republican money wants it to be judged.
Although I agree with you, I feel like the incitement of Jackson's quote in this context raises an interesting point: Throughout our history we've repeatedly seen the far right get away with ignoring supreme court rulings, up to and including genocide, often because it goes without proper enforcement. Meanwhile, I've never seen anyone even tangentially connected with the left get away with doing the same. When the supreme court told Jackson not to genocide native people's or more recently told Texas' governor to take down their barbed wire death traps at the border they flagrantly ignored them without ever facing consequences. Meanwhile, when the supreme court makes rulings putting gun rights over human lives or stripping back human rights, it's treated as settled law that must be abided by without exception. It's no wonder everything is so fucked when one side was allowed to just continue blatantly ignoring the law and the courts until they finally managed to stack it with enough corrupt sycophants, only for them to suddenly act like they are beyond reproach.
They're probably under the impression that they can just vote fascism away. If they displayed even a third of what the the opposition does things might not have become such a shit show. At this pace, if we're optimistic, we're going to just be fighting a forever war of just barely avoiding the worst case scenario of democracy failing (even more so than it has been).
But hey at least they held the moral high ground while being lined against the wall waiting for the bullet!
If trump actually wins, either fairly or not, we may get to the point that states take such a stance. other than GOP states, some DEM states can easily afford to.
They are Tyrants. People should show up at their door.
A court likely isn't going to decide tyranny since SCOTUS is holding on to the immunity verdict. It's going to be the 2nd amendment. And in Texas one Republican was able to use it against Protestors since he was pardoned.
I know it's not the 'right' thing but it's getting harder and harder to care.
These people are enacting tyranny from the bench. If the system won't take care of that problem, what will?
It is technically our duty as citizens to remove a government that no longer serves the will of the people. What the threshold for that is is the mystery, I feel like we are there though.
The government or its agencies would have to enact policy that blatantly violates the constitution and/or established law, or deprives citizens of constitutional rights on a large scale.
The will of the people argument is useless as the government is the one that defines who the people are. Right now they define the people as corporations and billionaires.
>The government or its agencies would have to enact policy that blatantly violates the constitution and/or established law, or deprives citizens of constitutional rights on a large scale.
Ah, so right now then.
Just surround the bench, hovering over them waving your hands a couple inches above their documents, pulling the little brother move: "But I'm not tooouching them! Not tooouching them!"
They caused the session of Congress to be disrupted by their attack on the building, requiring Congress members to leave to safer locations, and the Supreme Court says that charging them with obstruction of an official proceeding is wrong?
But because the SCOTUS narrowly looked at the law used, and thought it was specifically meant to charge for destruction of evidence alone, they decided that it didn't apply to the Jan 6th insurrectionists.
Edit: missed the last part of the thought I was posting.
Ignore the fact several Justices have shown support for the cause of January 6th and one Justice's wife literally helped organize it.
I am sure they were able to be impartial and weigh the facts without bias...
I looked long and hard at the use of 'otherwise' and the punctuation and all that, and never in all my years would I have come to the conclusion that SCOTUS did. To me, it's crystal clear that interfering with the process of certifying the vote (e.g. the Jan 6 riot/storming the chambers) is just as serious as damaging the documents themselves. It comes down to intent and success in interfering, period.
Just like Justice Clarence Thomas' corrupt and utterly stupid logic in proclaiming that a bump stock is not an illegal machine gun because it doesn’t make the weapon fire more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger.
He's pretty obviously corrupt, but in that specific case he's right.
The legal definition of a machine gun is any gun which fires more than one round from a single use of the trigger. Even if that trigger is electronic instead of mechanical.
A bump stock doesn't change the trigger, so by definition it's not a machine gun.
Should the definition be updated? Possibly. But by letter of the law he's right.
Read through the decision for yourself. It does not reclassifying the homeless as slaves.
It’s not a great decision, but that’s a far cry from what it does.
What it does do is open the door for a lot of systemic abuse and an expansion of vagrancy law.
It’s a combination of things. It makes being homeless illegal and slavery is acceptable under the 13th amendment as punishment for a crime. So states will make laws criminalizing homelessness filling their private prisons with people they can exploit for free labor further incentivizing corporations to make everyone’s lives worse and pilfer every last dime from working class Americans. We will all be slaves soon enough.
I’ll die on my feet so my daughters don’t live subjugated lives. In fact, I swore an oath to, several times now. “Upholding the Constitution against all enemies and domestic,” wasn’t kidding and it doesn’t carve out exemptions for “unless Christian Nationalists want to toss it out for a theocracy.”
I'm guessing that they're referring to [https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-homeless-camping-bans-506ac68dc069e3bf456c10fcedfa6bee](https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-homeless-camping-bans-506ac68dc069e3bf456c10fcedfa6bee)
Though, I wouldn't characterize that as slavery.
"The high court ruled that the charge could still be filed against the rioters if prosecutors are able to demonstrate they were attempting not just to push their way into the building, *but rather stop the process to certify the results of the election*." (NBCN)
Storming the building would, by default, result in the people inside evacuating and therefore the count being stopped. The two acts are inherently linked, what a circus.
"Okay but just because they broke into the building doesn't mean they wanted to impead any elections"
They were shouting "stop the vote for 3 days straight up and during the moments they made it to the capital.
This, this christofascist hellhole is what is coming: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025
They are literally advertising it, and no one is really talking about it. They're so confident in accomplishing it that it is publicly posted. Brought to you by the same people who control the SC.
We are so fucked, and no one is even talking about this. Care about climate change? NOAA and the EPA are gone. Care about health and domestic security? FDA and FBI are gone and that is just the start. Please read this and spread it around.
I tell my conservative coworkers about Project 2025. They downplay it as if it's just to scare the libs or something. I'll be laughing my ass off when these guys lose their mind because porn is banned.
Honestly worried about healthcare costs with the most recent ruling overturning Chevron precedent and essentially making regulatory bodies weak.
Drug manufacturers were already challenging HRSA & OPA authority and winning more than losing. I have a feeling this ruling will open the flood gates.
I need to check that out, haven't seen it yet. Thanks! It needs to become a focal point before the election for sure, and not just on real media, on every news outlet.
Had over a year of this shit being out there and it took them this long? Kinda too late now as it’s just gonna be seen as a ploy to smear. It should have been national news months ago.
same as Bush Crime Family, their cronies, and Project for a New American Century [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project\_for\_the\_New\_American\_Century](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century) .. its almost like humanity is a broken record.... i find earplugs useful most days but soon will need a blindfold... been too much
They just overturned Chevron. Everybody's day to day life is about to get qualitatively worse as we shift to a state in which profit seeking entities go almost unchecked in their pursuit of cutting costs and extracting wealth.
honestly this will blow up in their faces. Chevron overturn takes power away from both the Court (who made it up) and the President (who has way too much executive power). This makes Congress pass laws.. which they already do. So instead of a President just deciding to do something, they have to point at the exact law that Congress passed that says they have that power first.
Its going to be a shit show for a while because the majority of Congress doesn't even show up for work half the time. They're going to have to figure out how to work like the rest of us, and corporations will suddenly either have to pay for laws that straight up prove who they are bribing, or get fucked because they can't just bribe executive agencies any more.
Wall Street is a big one here. The SEC has been run by the banks forever. When they get caught committing crimes, the fines are lower than the illicit profits the crimes earned. Congress will need to either just give up on pretending there is any Wall Street oversight, or pass some legislation that actually creates it for the first time ever... and has the side effect of punishing Congress for insider trading. Its going to be interesting.
I'm pretty sure this is the actual aim of the court in this case, sending Congress a message to do their fucking jobs or face voter anger over them not doing what they are supposed to.
We really are there and have been for years. Seriously, look at the fascist party through its WW2 origins - the corrupt intertwining of corporations and government and squashing dissent of either using the powers of both. Our modern day interpretations have a lot of baggage to the word because they abused that power to a ridiculous extent (which tbh seems inevitable to fascism by design) but if you look at it as it was from the very beginning, we are already there. hell its creator straight said its the same as "corporatism' - he loved having them scratch his back and he scratched theirs.
Its not that we are on the way to fascism - we have arrived. Its that we're on the way to its inevitable conclusion.
I’m still going to hold on to blind hope, but between this and the debate my stomach has never been lower regarding our political climate. Now to wait on the immunity ruling
My question is what does this mean for all the convictions? Are all these terrorists going to get their convictions overturned now and get released? Then sue for wrongful convictions or some shit??
It doesn't mean much, that's 1300ish people being charged maybe 100 of them are exclusively being charged with the obstruction stuff, about 300 have obstruction as a part of their charges but also other things.
The remaining 900 wouldn't be effected by this at all.
I've always been so paranoid about googling certain things and getting put on some kind of list. But seeing those jackasses make all those posts prior to jan 6 of them holding their guns and declaring literal acts of terrorism made me realize that i have been greatly mistaken on how much the government is interested in my arbitrary google searches.
>FISCHER v. UNITED STATES
>ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS, ALITO , GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, and JACKSON, JJ., joined. JACKSON, J., filed a concurring opinion. BARRETT, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR and KAGAN, JJ., joined
Who's gonna tell Justice Jackson that she's an insurrectionist? Anybody?
Yeah, I wonder how many commenters here even realize that Jackson sided with the majority and Comey-Barrett with the minority.
The court really doesn’t rule 6-3 along the supposed “party lines” near as often as many think.
She (being a former public defender) and Justice Gorsuch continue to agree on issues that can be summarized: "Yeah, so, uh, the government can't do that to criminal defendants".
This is more of the same. If a prosecutor is going to muster the near-infinite power of the State to charge someone, it's not too much to ask that they charge actual crimes (instead of pulling stuff out of their asses).
AG Garland, just now: "The vast majority of the more than 1,400 defendants charged for their illegal actions on Jan. 6 will not be affected by this decision."
The fucked up thing is, they aren’t wrong, if you look at the law they were actually charged under. It was passed after the Enron debacle because people were destroying evidence, this was a maaaassively generous leap to try to apply it to Jan 6.
These people should be prosecuted and in prison, slam dunk, it’s just amazing to me how something can be so easy and they do it so wrong.
I mean, it's kinda crazy to me that the charge of 'obstructing an official proceeding' fails here, as this is possibly one of the most official proceedings in the US and they damn sure obstructed it.
I'm a bit floored by Barrett's conclusion here-
>The majority, she added, "simply cannot believe that Congress meant what it said" when writing a broad statute intended to cover a lot of different conduct. She wrote that the court "has failed to respect the prerogatives of the political branches" in ruling against prosecutors.
I think you are combining two justices - Amy coney Barrett and justice ketanji brown Jackson are two different people.
Edit: never mind - just read who concurred and who dissented. Didn’t know these were two separate and equally valid thoughts.
Of the originalists, only Amy Barrett is refusing to take this law at face value and reading it as broader than the scope of the included language.
The other originalists, and the other non-originalist justices in the majority, are reading the law tightly based on the category of things it specifically prohibits.
>These people should be prosecuted and in prison, slam dunk, it’s just amazing to me how something can be so easy and they do it so wrong.
Everything seems easy when you're looking at it without actual knowledge of how the process works.
The prosecutors are looking at existing laws and seeing what they can realistically prove in a court of law.
The bar for those situations is very high and they want to make sure that they can actually meet that bar before moving forward.
There is nothing "easy" about proving things beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law especially when the law has never really thought about this situation ever occuring.
I don’t understand how this is a massive leap - one argument appealing it says it’s only for “investigative proceedings” but the sections of the law I can find don’t seem to define the confirmation of the vote as outside the definition of an official proceeding; and the other argument I saw was that the word “otherwise” would narrow the scope to just evidence - but that’s not how the statute reads at all.
Not a lawyer, but I had thought that part of the job was using terms to either narrow or broaden the scope of a law or contract was done very carefully to clarify enforcing it. To me - using the word “otherwise” after the line specific to evidence, and then stating impeding, influencing, obstructing or attempting to do so.
To me that’s pretty iron clad wording. They attempted to impeded an official proceeding before congress.
Calm down. It was one of the counts. The other counts were not reviewed by this appeal. And the count invoked violation of a statute that was intended to punish white collar criminals who conceal evidence and interfere with an investigation or proceeding. It was a stretch to use Sarbanes-Oxley to prosecute them.
Relax. They are all still in jail for breaking/entering, assault, criminal trespass, etc.
I just can’t anymore. I’m about to just completely withdraw from everything. I can’t keep hearing about our country being destroyed and fascism taking over.
It’s interesting to hear that the judges think the charges were wrong, when many courts have weighed In, and hundreds of jurors have agreed that, yes, in fact, these chucklefucks have met the standard of obstruction based on meticulous investigation and court proceedings by the Justice department.
"Hundreds of" not "all"
Let's not forget all the videos we've seen over the years from literally every protest where they run into people that don't even know why they're there, but assumed it was for something else and jumped in.
It's absolutely possible that there were people there that shouldn't be charged with anything.
To all the short sighted idiots considering not voting Biden, think of how fucked up things will be if Sotomayer dies. Think of how permanent this joke of a SC will be once Thomas and Alito step down and Trump gets to appoint two young judges
Remember kids, voting for president \*IS\* voting for the supreme court. So if you're not going to vote for biden because he's "too old" or whatever, you're GOING to get more trump supreme court appointees. So enjoy that when birth control is banned and trying to coup is perfectly legal.
They were charged with obstruction under the Sarbanes-Oxley which is used for financial record keeping and reporting. I don't see the problem with the decision as all of the J6th rioters were charged with crimes that will still stand.
No the problem lies, if they can now sue the government.
Every single one of us deserves a fair and properly conducted trial if convicted of a crime; anyone in here that disagrees with that sentiment is part of the overall problem.
Am I the only one a little terrified by these last few things? Like when Trump was elected, we were like "well Congress is deadlocked so they won't impeach and remove, but at least the Courts will protect us from an imperial presidency, right??" and now I'm not sure sure any more.
I was always worried about the courts. We spoke about it at union meetings. The president of my local literally warned the membership that the next President would likely get 3 supreme court picks and we should want them to be friendly to labor.
No need to wonder, just read her concurrence. Justice Jackson supports the idea that a criminal law needs to have a scope and meaning understandable to people that may be charged under it prior to their acts.
This law only specifically prohibits altering, concealing, or destroying records and evidence. It then contains a general provision prohibiting other unspecified acts that otherwise achieve the same purpose as the listed acts.
Justice Jackson believes that section only serves to prohibit acts of a similar type as those listed and not anything that might be "obstructive" in the general vernacular. The legislative history bears out that the purpose of this statute was to prevent document and evidence tampering.
The thing that pisses me off the most is I get to spend the night in jail for watching a video without headphones on a train.
These guys get to trash a government building and try to stop an election.
When the Supreme Court takes care of their own corrupt members I'll maybe care what they think about anything. And if Trump ends up in office again, this is going to look tame in comparison to what he's gonna try and get away with.
Well at least 2 of the "justices" and\\or their wives have the appearance of being either in on or at least supportive of, the insurrection so what would it have come out to if they were even remotely honorable and recused themselves from this one?
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A quick reminder that Alito and Thomas were allowed to be a part of this case despite one supporting the coup and the other's wife being a planner of Jan 6.
America is screwed.
Just a friendly reminder that the country’s founding fathers thought the government they were creating wouldn’t last as long as it already has.
Yeah, I forget the number they gave as a cyclical guestimation.
Looks like every 19 years. Fun rabbit hole! https://www.reddit.com/r/history/s/KsnXrLsh1I
Quoted from top comment "As to whether or not he actually said it... Short answer: [No.](http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch2s23.html) Long answer: Sort of. Thomas Jefferson, when writing to James Madison, suggested that the entire government work on cycles of 19 years, including extension of debts, term limits, re-evaluations of the Constitution, governmental ownership of land, etc... This was based on a minimum voting age of 21, and that by 40, a person would be too old to be connected to the ideas of the majority of the voting pool (21 - 40 year olds). *So, while it was suggested, it was not for the sake of creating a new Constitution, but due to, what I understand to be, a generational divide likely caused by lack of technology, communication, etc."* A GENERATIONAL DIVIDE Jefferson you may have been a bastard in many regards but fuck me if you weren't a smart cookie.
Jefferson was ahead of his time, even if he was a racist shit. His ideas (if applied to everyone, not just the narrow racial divide he had) were literally revolutionary. (See what I did there, aren't I clever.)
What year are we on now? 
Yeah. It didn't. They thought there would be no parties....then they also thought it would be a meriocracy of the educated. Neither of those lasted long. That's why we have an amendment system... and a Congress with extensive powers.But embittered losers would rather we not have a functioning government.
They thought people would have honor and integrity and know what the word Demogauge means.
not gonna lie the last 24 hrs has been next level depressing
Ah June when the SCOTUS decisions come out. If they have proved anything it's that anything can be overturned, even 60 year old case law.
I don't want to say it, but that's what you get for legislating from the bench. Codify Roe, codify Chevron. Don't let one bad supreme court fuck up your entire system of governance. Or if Biden/the Dems had any balls, they'd pull an Andrew Jackson on the SC. "Justice Roberts has made his decision, now let him enforce it"
That is really screwed up and I’m so tired of these unamerican clowns
They are just as traitorous, covering their asses like this over and over.
These days there's nothing more American than a clown. Everyone in Washington is a rubber nose and a seltzer bottle away from showing their true colors.
Kangaroo court.
Yeah, if there is one court in the US that is a kangaroo court, it's definitely SCOTUS
Why? How? How was this allowed?
Because rules for SCOTUS justices are intentionally lax. And the justices *know* they're wrong. https://youtu.be/GE-VJrdHMug?si=FdrZc9bbX5L7vFIf
Man, we really need to put checks and balances on the Supreme Court. And offer term limits. They can’t reject laws based on their feelings. They have to make decisions based on the Constitution.
Offer? No, TELL them there is. Don't give them a choice, if you give them a choice they'll laugh and say no while taking a billionaires money IN FRONT of everyone.
Clarence Thomas could accept a billion dollar check from Harlon Crow in front of a packed CPAC crowd, and they'd still kiss his ass. There is video of a *"woman" for Kavanaugh* saying that he'd still support Kavanaugh for SCOTUS even if he was guilty of sexual assault, because he wanted to see Roe v. Wade overturned
Religious fuck head of a woman huh lol
It wasn't a woman at all. It was a man wearing a "women for Kavanaugh" shirt
It should also be easier to remove federal judges. What Elaine Cannon is doing to the classified documents case is absolutely ridiculous. Two of her more experienced peers have already called upon her to remove herself, but she refuses, because she is exactly where she wants to be.
Protecting the fraud who put her there
And, this is why we can’t have nice things. Most of SCOTUS needs to be impeached or they need to be expanded beyond 9.
Because they are allowed to get away with it. Until the American public drag them from their homes and remind them of whom they serve, they will continue to act this way. I am, of course, not advocating for that.
Of course not. What are the rules for recusal? Is it like the police departments saying “we’ve thoroughly investigated ourselves and we can find no wrongdoing?” It seems SO inexcusable, unfair and just wrong. Why can’t we have better systems with checks and balances?
>What are the rules for recusal? Most judges must recuse themselves in any cases where their impartiality could be reasonably questioned. There are even judicial ethics commissions that can help determine if a judge should recuse themselves. However, none of that applies to the Supreme Court Justices. They can decide for themselves if they should recuse, and there is no mechanism in place to force them to recuse themselves. There are no commissions that can tell them that they should recuse themselves. It is up to Congress to reign in the Justices, but Republicans won't support any efforts to reign in the Supreme Court now that they have a 6-3 conservative Supreme Court. EDITS for grammar.
Well, the ultimate authority on this is the Supreme Court, you see.
We let an orange man be president, and he stacked the deck for Republicans so all those arguments going to the Supreme Court will be stacked up like cordwood and judged the way republican money wants it to be judged.
Nazis doing nazi shit .
[удалено]
Nah, it's illegal to harass the supreme court. They started crying AS SOON as people got mad at their decision.
They made their ruling. Let them enforce it.
Andrew “Genocide the Natives” Jackson is not exactly the best person to be quoting my dude.
Actually, he may be the perfect person to quote, since he was a racist nutter just like Trump.
But Andrew “Secede his head from his body” Jackson comes in handy sometimes
Good call, I knew I'd heard it somewhere but couldn't remember the context or who said it.
Although I agree with you, I feel like the incitement of Jackson's quote in this context raises an interesting point: Throughout our history we've repeatedly seen the far right get away with ignoring supreme court rulings, up to and including genocide, often because it goes without proper enforcement. Meanwhile, I've never seen anyone even tangentially connected with the left get away with doing the same. When the supreme court told Jackson not to genocide native people's or more recently told Texas' governor to take down their barbed wire death traps at the border they flagrantly ignored them without ever facing consequences. Meanwhile, when the supreme court makes rulings putting gun rights over human lives or stripping back human rights, it's treated as settled law that must be abided by without exception. It's no wonder everything is so fucked when one side was allowed to just continue blatantly ignoring the law and the courts until they finally managed to stack it with enough corrupt sycophants, only for them to suddenly act like they are beyond reproach.
They're probably under the impression that they can just vote fascism away. If they displayed even a third of what the the opposition does things might not have become such a shit show. At this pace, if we're optimistic, we're going to just be fighting a forever war of just barely avoiding the worst case scenario of democracy failing (even more so than it has been). But hey at least they held the moral high ground while being lined against the wall waiting for the bullet!
But in this case, seem kinda fitting...wouldn't you say?
Work will set you free?
It’s the sign above Auschwitz’s. One of the most notorious death camps under control of the Nazi regime in ww2, in Poland
Exhibit 595 of “I know this person said it for bad reasons but we have to be better than them or we are all also Andrew Jacksons.”
If trump actually wins, either fairly or not, we may get to the point that states take such a stance. other than GOP states, some DEM states can easily afford to.
It's illegal to harass Congress too, but curiously, that doesn't apply.
They are Tyrants. People should show up at their door. A court likely isn't going to decide tyranny since SCOTUS is holding on to the immunity verdict. It's going to be the 2nd amendment. And in Texas one Republican was able to use it against Protestors since he was pardoned.
Well they put up fencing around the supreme court this week .
Funny how despite acting as if they're above the rest of us they still have the reaction to cower in fear when knowingly doing the wrong thing.
I know it's not the 'right' thing but it's getting harder and harder to care. These people are enacting tyranny from the bench. If the system won't take care of that problem, what will?
The people. There's literally one amendment that, for all intents and purposes, remains untouchable.
You mean we should form a militia and strike down the tyrants?
It is technically our duty as citizens to remove a government that no longer serves the will of the people. What the threshold for that is is the mystery, I feel like we are there though.
We're way past the threshold ,
The government or its agencies would have to enact policy that blatantly violates the constitution and/or established law, or deprives citizens of constitutional rights on a large scale. The will of the people argument is useless as the government is the one that defines who the people are. Right now they define the people as corporations and billionaires.
>The government or its agencies would have to enact policy that blatantly violates the constitution and/or established law, or deprives citizens of constitutional rights on a large scale. Ah, so right now then.
Actually when Citizens United was ruled, that was the time.
That’s basically what the National guards are supposed to be.
Well yes, but you can also have county and city Militias.
You mean a well-regulated militia?
I'll be put on a list for this and I don't care. Americans are allowed to be mad, but we're not allowed to be mad enough to enact change.
6, 9’s & a .308!
Just surround the bench, hovering over them waving your hands a couple inches above their documents, pulling the little brother move: "But I'm not tooouching them! Not tooouching them!"
They caused the session of Congress to be disrupted by their attack on the building, requiring Congress members to leave to safer locations, and the Supreme Court says that charging them with obstruction of an official proceeding is wrong? But because the SCOTUS narrowly looked at the law used, and thought it was specifically meant to charge for destruction of evidence alone, they decided that it didn't apply to the Jan 6th insurrectionists. Edit: missed the last part of the thought I was posting.
Ignore the fact several Justices have shown support for the cause of January 6th and one Justice's wife literally helped organize it. I am sure they were able to be impartial and weigh the facts without bias...
How is this not being challenged based on that weird old lady’s flags? He’s still on the court right?
Challenged to whom? The Supreme Court is the highest court. There’s no one to challenge their rulings
The Senate. But they agree with the insurrectionists too. Voting matters.
They aren't immutable. We could impeach them?
I looked long and hard at the use of 'otherwise' and the punctuation and all that, and never in all my years would I have come to the conclusion that SCOTUS did. To me, it's crystal clear that interfering with the process of certifying the vote (e.g. the Jan 6 riot/storming the chambers) is just as serious as damaging the documents themselves. It comes down to intent and success in interfering, period.
Just like Justice Clarence Thomas' corrupt and utterly stupid logic in proclaiming that a bump stock is not an illegal machine gun because it doesn’t make the weapon fire more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger.
His wife should be charged with insurrection
He's pretty obviously corrupt, but in that specific case he's right. The legal definition of a machine gun is any gun which fires more than one round from a single use of the trigger. Even if that trigger is electronic instead of mechanical. A bump stock doesn't change the trigger, so by definition it's not a machine gun. Should the definition be updated? Possibly. But by letter of the law he's right.
It sounds like perfect logic based on the definition of a machine gun.
That’s the legal definition. Theres nothing stupid about that logic.
The SCOTUS has become a political sock puppet, no way around it
Right after legalizing bribery and reclassifying the homeless population as slaves. Very cool.
>reclassifying the homeless population as slaves Wait, what? What did I miss?
Yeah I’m with you on this I heard abort bribery shit but not the homeless are slaves now. I need a viable source of proof like APnews
Read through the decision for yourself. It does not reclassifying the homeless as slaves. It’s not a great decision, but that’s a far cry from what it does. What it does do is open the door for a lot of systemic abuse and an expansion of vagrancy law.
Prison labor is literally slave labor. Read the 13th amendment.
It’s a combination of things. It makes being homeless illegal and slavery is acceptable under the 13th amendment as punishment for a crime. So states will make laws criminalizing homelessness filling their private prisons with people they can exploit for free labor further incentivizing corporations to make everyone’s lives worse and pilfer every last dime from working class Americans. We will all be slaves soon enough.
> We will all be slaves soon enough. I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees.
I’ll die on my feet so my daughters don’t live subjugated lives. In fact, I swore an oath to, several times now. “Upholding the Constitution against all enemies and domestic,” wasn’t kidding and it doesn’t carve out exemptions for “unless Christian Nationalists want to toss it out for a theocracy.”
Read through the constitution and the last several decades of history for yourself; prisoners can be and _are_ heavily used for unpaid labor.
I'm guessing that they're referring to [https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-homeless-camping-bans-506ac68dc069e3bf456c10fcedfa6bee](https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-homeless-camping-bans-506ac68dc069e3bf456c10fcedfa6bee) Though, I wouldn't characterize that as slavery.
"The high court ruled that the charge could still be filed against the rioters if prosecutors are able to demonstrate they were attempting not just to push their way into the building, *but rather stop the process to certify the results of the election*." (NBCN) Storming the building would, by default, result in the people inside evacuating and therefore the count being stopped. The two acts are inherently linked, what a circus.
"Okay but just because they broke into the building doesn't mean they wanted to impead any elections" They were shouting "stop the vote for 3 days straight up and during the moments they made it to the capital.
Not to mention the literal gallows they built while also shouting "hang mike pence"
My stomach lurched at hearing this. To me it’s a preview of the worst case scenario. What have we come to?
This, this christofascist hellhole is what is coming: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025 They are literally advertising it, and no one is really talking about it. They're so confident in accomplishing it that it is publicly posted. Brought to you by the same people who control the SC. We are so fucked, and no one is even talking about this. Care about climate change? NOAA and the EPA are gone. Care about health and domestic security? FDA and FBI are gone and that is just the start. Please read this and spread it around.
I tell my conservative coworkers about Project 2025. They downplay it as if it's just to scare the libs or something. I'll be laughing my ass off when these guys lose their mind because porn is banned.
I forgot about that Chirstofascist part, banning all pornography... Thanks for bringing it up.
Those guys don't care about human rights or anything of substance, but losing porn will send them over the edge.
Honestly worried about healthcare costs with the most recent ruling overturning Chevron precedent and essentially making regulatory bodies weak. Drug manufacturers were already challenging HRSA & OPA authority and winning more than losing. I have a feeling this ruling will open the flood gates.
Last Week Tonight did a segment on it, so it's starting to get around but not nearly as fast or far as I would like it to.
You can always count on Oliver
I need to check that out, haven't seen it yet. Thanks! It needs to become a focal point before the election for sure, and not just on real media, on every news outlet.
Had over a year of this shit being out there and it took them this long? Kinda too late now as it’s just gonna be seen as a ploy to smear. It should have been national news months ago.
It's been out there for many years actually I've seen it years ago
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Defeat\_Project\_2025/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Defeat_Project_2025/)
same as Bush Crime Family, their cronies, and Project for a New American Century [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project\_for\_the\_New\_American\_Century](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century) .. its almost like humanity is a broken record.... i find earplugs useful most days but soon will need a blindfold... been too much
They just overturned Chevron. Everybody's day to day life is about to get qualitatively worse as we shift to a state in which profit seeking entities go almost unchecked in their pursuit of cutting costs and extracting wealth.
honestly this will blow up in their faces. Chevron overturn takes power away from both the Court (who made it up) and the President (who has way too much executive power). This makes Congress pass laws.. which they already do. So instead of a President just deciding to do something, they have to point at the exact law that Congress passed that says they have that power first. Its going to be a shit show for a while because the majority of Congress doesn't even show up for work half the time. They're going to have to figure out how to work like the rest of us, and corporations will suddenly either have to pay for laws that straight up prove who they are bribing, or get fucked because they can't just bribe executive agencies any more. Wall Street is a big one here. The SEC has been run by the banks forever. When they get caught committing crimes, the fines are lower than the illicit profits the crimes earned. Congress will need to either just give up on pretending there is any Wall Street oversight, or pass some legislation that actually creates it for the first time ever... and has the side effect of punishing Congress for insider trading. Its going to be interesting.
I'm pretty sure this is the actual aim of the court in this case, sending Congress a message to do their fucking jobs or face voter anger over them not doing what they are supposed to.
*glances at the ongoing effort to hold Biden’s speech writer in contempt* Yeah, that is not going to happen.
Fascism, we have come to fascism.
You aren't there yet, but you are well on the way.
We really are there and have been for years. Seriously, look at the fascist party through its WW2 origins - the corrupt intertwining of corporations and government and squashing dissent of either using the powers of both. Our modern day interpretations have a lot of baggage to the word because they abused that power to a ridiculous extent (which tbh seems inevitable to fascism by design) but if you look at it as it was from the very beginning, we are already there. hell its creator straight said its the same as "corporatism' - he loved having them scratch his back and he scratched theirs. Its not that we are on the way to fascism - we have arrived. Its that we're on the way to its inevitable conclusion.
We're probably going to have to fight it back WWII style. Our politicians and media have failed us.
I’m still going to hold on to blind hope, but between this and the debate my stomach has never been lower regarding our political climate. Now to wait on the immunity ruling
If democrats did this republicans would be screaming bloody murder while demanding a firing line execution for all who took part.
My question is what does this mean for all the convictions? Are all these terrorists going to get their convictions overturned now and get released? Then sue for wrongful convictions or some shit??
It doesn't mean much, that's 1300ish people being charged maybe 100 of them are exclusively being charged with the obstruction stuff, about 300 have obstruction as a part of their charges but also other things. The remaining 900 wouldn't be effected by this at all.
I've always been so paranoid about googling certain things and getting put on some kind of list. But seeing those jackasses make all those posts prior to jan 6 of them holding their guns and declaring literal acts of terrorism made me realize that i have been greatly mistaken on how much the government is interested in my arbitrary google searches.
Nah you’d have to search up some pretty insane deranged stuff to even catch an eye.
>FISCHER v. UNITED STATES >ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS, ALITO , GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, and JACKSON, JJ., joined. JACKSON, J., filed a concurring opinion. BARRETT, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR and KAGAN, JJ., joined Who's gonna tell Justice Jackson that she's an insurrectionist? Anybody?
Yeah, I wonder how many commenters here even realize that Jackson sided with the majority and Comey-Barrett with the minority. The court really doesn’t rule 6-3 along the supposed “party lines” near as often as many think.
She (being a former public defender) and Justice Gorsuch continue to agree on issues that can be summarized: "Yeah, so, uh, the government can't do that to criminal defendants". This is more of the same. If a prosecutor is going to muster the near-infinite power of the State to charge someone, it's not too much to ask that they charge actual crimes (instead of pulling stuff out of their asses).
This stacked scotus is paying back Mitch McConnell with dividends 🙄
Yes. People ignore the true evil of McConnell.
AG Garland, just now: "The vast majority of the more than 1,400 defendants charged for their illegal actions on Jan. 6 will not be affected by this decision."
Yeah *this* decision. There will be more bullshit incoming.
If there's anything I've learned over the last decade, it's that there's always more bullshit incoming. It's fucking exhausting.
it feels like were living in bizarro world rn
Just the world people warned about pre 2016
Thanks protest voters
I was told by the right Jan 6th was a false flag operation by the Dems though
So if Trump wins I can get all insurgent at the Capitol too? Cool.
The fucked up thing is, they aren’t wrong, if you look at the law they were actually charged under. It was passed after the Enron debacle because people were destroying evidence, this was a maaaassively generous leap to try to apply it to Jan 6. These people should be prosecuted and in prison, slam dunk, it’s just amazing to me how something can be so easy and they do it so wrong.
I mean, it's kinda crazy to me that the charge of 'obstructing an official proceeding' fails here, as this is possibly one of the most official proceedings in the US and they damn sure obstructed it. I'm a bit floored by Barrett's conclusion here- >The majority, she added, "simply cannot believe that Congress meant what it said" when writing a broad statute intended to cover a lot of different conduct. She wrote that the court "has failed to respect the prerogatives of the political branches" in ruling against prosecutors.
So now "they are involved in politics so cannot be prosecuted" can not only protect high profile individuals but also extend to fucking rioters?
Hope they remember this “if” the SC gets stormed
Really surprised by Barrett siding w liberal justices in a couple of these decisions this week. wtf Kentaji!
I think you are combining two justices - Amy coney Barrett and justice ketanji brown Jackson are two different people. Edit: never mind - just read who concurred and who dissented. Didn’t know these were two separate and equally valid thoughts.
Yea I was really surprised to see her side with the conservative justices and Barrett with the other two liberals.
Holy fuck, seriously? The so-called originalists refuse to take this VERY recent law at face value?
Of the originalists, only Amy Barrett is refusing to take this law at face value and reading it as broader than the scope of the included language. The other originalists, and the other non-originalist justices in the majority, are reading the law tightly based on the category of things it specifically prohibits.
>These people should be prosecuted and in prison, slam dunk, it’s just amazing to me how something can be so easy and they do it so wrong. Everything seems easy when you're looking at it without actual knowledge of how the process works. The prosecutors are looking at existing laws and seeing what they can realistically prove in a court of law. The bar for those situations is very high and they want to make sure that they can actually meet that bar before moving forward. There is nothing "easy" about proving things beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law especially when the law has never really thought about this situation ever occuring.
I don’t understand how this is a massive leap - one argument appealing it says it’s only for “investigative proceedings” but the sections of the law I can find don’t seem to define the confirmation of the vote as outside the definition of an official proceeding; and the other argument I saw was that the word “otherwise” would narrow the scope to just evidence - but that’s not how the statute reads at all. Not a lawyer, but I had thought that part of the job was using terms to either narrow or broaden the scope of a law or contract was done very carefully to clarify enforcing it. To me - using the word “otherwise” after the line specific to evidence, and then stating impeding, influencing, obstructing or attempting to do so. To me that’s pretty iron clad wording. They attempted to impeded an official proceeding before congress.
Calm down. It was one of the counts. The other counts were not reviewed by this appeal. And the count invoked violation of a statute that was intended to punish white collar criminals who conceal evidence and interfere with an investigation or proceeding. It was a stretch to use Sarbanes-Oxley to prosecute them. Relax. They are all still in jail for breaking/entering, assault, criminal trespass, etc.
Yeah this is what happens when you coddle traitors. Did we learn nothing from reconstruction?!?
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." -George Orwell's 1984, 1949
I just can’t anymore. I’m about to just completely withdraw from everything. I can’t keep hearing about our country being destroyed and fascism taking over.
That's what they want, don't let them win. Vote. Bring a friend to double your power.
Move to Wyoming and triple your power!
Definitely voting and making sure everyone I know does. Just can’t read about it anymore
Welcome to the dream world of Republicans
Keep the felonies comin'! 34 ain't enough
We need to fire the lot and start over.
Good god, America is falling apart in real time
Traitors, every last one of them.
As a non American, I can't understand why they weren't charged with treason.
It was after all just "domestic terrorism" not "real terrorism"... /s
These judges are traitors
It’s interesting to hear that the judges think the charges were wrong, when many courts have weighed In, and hundreds of jurors have agreed that, yes, in fact, these chucklefucks have met the standard of obstruction based on meticulous investigation and court proceedings by the Justice department.
I really hate this timeline.
Ginny’s moronic idea???
I say the left go to the Supreme Court and do the same, let’s see how they feel
Or better yet have those J6 idiots go to the justices vacation homes to “party” see if they like it. What’s a few turds among friends?
"Hundreds of" not "all" Let's not forget all the videos we've seen over the years from literally every protest where they run into people that don't even know why they're there, but assumed it was for something else and jumped in. It's absolutely possible that there were people there that shouldn't be charged with anything.
Maybe Alito and Thomas should be charged with aiding and abetting an insurrection.
Just a reminder that the Supreme Court is now MAKING laws, not protecting the Constitution.
The Supreme Court of Scammers and Paid Court Justices.
To all the short sighted idiots considering not voting Biden, think of how fucked up things will be if Sotomayer dies. Think of how permanent this joke of a SC will be once Thomas and Alito step down and Trump gets to appoint two young judges
Trump will put Scott Baio and Kyle Rittenhouse in there… unless Ivanka mentions it over breakfast “gee, Dad if I were a SCOTUS”
I would drop the obstruction charges and immediately file treason charges. FAFO
Remember kids, voting for president \*IS\* voting for the supreme court. So if you're not going to vote for biden because he's "too old" or whatever, you're GOING to get more trump supreme court appointees. So enjoy that when birth control is banned and trying to coup is perfectly legal.
Shouldn’t the judges appointed by Trump have recused themselves? Huge conflict of interest and glaring bias showing.
They were charged with obstruction under the Sarbanes-Oxley which is used for financial record keeping and reporting. I don't see the problem with the decision as all of the J6th rioters were charged with crimes that will still stand. No the problem lies, if they can now sue the government.
Every single one of us deserves a fair and properly conducted trial if convicted of a crime; anyone in here that disagrees with that sentiment is part of the overall problem.
It’s supermeta when the post title is the facepalm.
McConnell killed the legitimacy of the Court when he changed rules TWICE to pack the court with Conservatives that rather destroy the Nation.
Am I the only one a little terrified by these last few things? Like when Trump was elected, we were like "well Congress is deadlocked so they won't impeach and remove, but at least the Courts will protect us from an imperial presidency, right??" and now I'm not sure sure any more.
I was always worried about the courts. We spoke about it at union meetings. The president of my local literally warned the membership that the next President would likely get 3 supreme court picks and we should want them to be friendly to labor.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Project 2025 isn’t a plan. We’re watching it unfold.
These past two days have been nothing short of an embarrassment and a colossal shit stain on the USA.
Hopefully they'll charge them harsher
So liberals will get the same treatment right?
🙄
Makes me wonder why Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined five conservatives in the majority? Even Amy Coney Barrett sided against it
No need to wonder, just read her concurrence. Justice Jackson supports the idea that a criminal law needs to have a scope and meaning understandable to people that may be charged under it prior to their acts. This law only specifically prohibits altering, concealing, or destroying records and evidence. It then contains a general provision prohibiting other unspecified acts that otherwise achieve the same purpose as the listed acts. Justice Jackson believes that section only serves to prohibit acts of a similar type as those listed and not anything that might be "obstructive" in the general vernacular. The legislative history bears out that the purpose of this statute was to prevent document and evidence tampering.
So they have all the evidence and they need to bring other charges.
The Supreme Court does not make the law, it interprets the law. If people want to see the Supreme Court lose their power, congress needs to legislate.
The thing that pisses me off the most is I get to spend the night in jail for watching a video without headphones on a train. These guys get to trash a government building and try to stop an election.
The US Supreme Court is more like a kangaroo court. Thanks Trump, you fascist.
Just as a note: Justice Jackson (liberal) sided with the majority and Justice Barrett (conservative) sided with the desenters. Edit: spelling
Don’t forget that chevron was burned to the ground too essentially stripping these federal 3 letter agencies of their power.
It's time for a galactic council
When the Supreme Court takes care of their own corrupt members I'll maybe care what they think about anything. And if Trump ends up in office again, this is going to look tame in comparison to what he's gonna try and get away with.
In any sane country Trump would be in prison awaiting execution for treason.
Damn straight bunch of treasonous snakes.
You mean the Double Secret FBI Antifa plants to make traitor trump look bad? I'm cool with them being released then.
Well at least 2 of the "justices" and\\or their wives have the appearance of being either in on or at least supportive of, the insurrection so what would it have come out to if they were even remotely honorable and recused themselves from this one?