Well, for starters, the Supreme Court protestors, as near as I can tell, aren’t breaking down windows and doors trying to get in, beating people with flagpoles, carrying zip ties with which to kidnap and detain justices, setting up gallows, or chanting “Hang Clarence Thomas.” (There’s an uncomfortable image if I ever saw one.)
For all the people who upvoted this and clearly didn’t read the article. . .let me quote the relevant part:
Alito acknowledged, “What happened on January 6 was very, very serious, and I’m not equating this with that.” But, he continued, “We need to find out what are the outer reaches of this statute under your interpretation.”
It’s like 200 words into the article.
Seems like it would be pretty typical to see how wide a net prosecutors are casting with their interpretation. He’s clearly not saying nor suggesting that they should be charged, only asking if they would be charged under their current interpretation.
More specifically the question is, does the statute in question apply to people preventing a government procedure from occurring? Previously the statute has been used to prosecute folks who tamper with evidence. They’re quibbling over the wording and whether storming a proceeding is also covered.
It’s seems fairly obvious to me that January 6th rioters wanted to stop the proceedings in a way that protestors of the supreme court do not. It also seems obvious that the government wouldn’t want citizens to be able to legally prevent it’s basic proceedings from occurring.
Also worth saying the defendant ran at a police line yelling “charge”
Well, for starters, the Supreme Court protestors, as near as I can tell, aren’t breaking down windows and doors trying to get in, beating people with flagpoles, carrying zip ties with which to kidnap and detain justices, setting up gallows, or chanting “Hang Clarence Thomas.” (There’s an uncomfortable image if I ever saw one.)
For all the people who upvoted this and clearly didn’t read the article. . .let me quote the relevant part:
It’s like 200 words into the article.
Seems like it would be pretty typical to see how wide a net prosecutors are casting with their interpretation. He’s clearly not saying nor suggesting that they should be charged, only asking if they would be charged under their current interpretation.
Counterpoint: Alito is a piece of shit and isn’t asking the question in good faith.
More specifically the question is, does the statute in question apply to people preventing a government procedure from occurring? Previously the statute has been used to prosecute folks who tamper with evidence. They’re quibbling over the wording and whether storming a proceeding is also covered.
It’s seems fairly obvious to me that January 6th rioters wanted to stop the proceedings in a way that protestors of the supreme court do not. It also seems obvious that the government wouldn’t want citizens to be able to legally prevent it’s basic proceedings from occurring.
Also worth saying the defendant ran at a police line yelling “charge”