Conservative SCOTUS Justices: Why isn't DOJ treating Dobbs protesters like January 6 attackers?

jeffw@lemmy.world to politics @lemmy.world – 203 points –
Conservative SCOTUS Justices: Why isn't DOJ treating Dobbs protesters like January 6 attackers?
motherjones.com
79

You are viewing a single comment

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.

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.

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...

  1. That if they didn't question the law, then it would likely apply to Jamaal Bowman and other protests (many of those by Democrat activists)
  2. That doing so was dangerous as it sets a basis for charging everyone with the same crime regardless of evidence of their actual intended purpose.

I’m not sure how or whether you gather that they are pretending that obstructing a government proceeding only applies to documents

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

Not it isn’t

From the article you will never read:

His attorney argues that Congress intended the obstruction law to apply only to instances where defendants tampered with physical evidence, such as destroying or forging documents used in proceedings.

The court is sympathetic to this bullshit argument. Since it's not demonizing black people, you ignored it.

Have a good pipedream

Expecting you to quit whatabouting for Trump's inbred violent minions is a bit of an unrealistic expectation, yes.

4 more...
4 more...
4 more...
4 more...
4 more...
4 more...
4 more...
4 more...
4 more...
4 more...
4 more...
4 more...
4 more...