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…
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.