Supreme Court not impressed with government Jan. 6 argument

 Red State:

...


In response, the government had no real answer except to illustrate its blatant hypocrisy with reckless abandonment. There is a two-tiered justice system, and being a far-left radical is the dividing line between having the book thrown at a defendant and a defendant getting a slap on the wrist. Theoretically, the left-wing protesters who block roads and prevent official proceedings (in this case, court proceedings) from occurring could be charged under the same statute as the January 6th protesters. According to the government, though, it's different because they somehow didn't know they weren't allowed to obstruct an official proceeding.

How does that make any sense? How is a meemaw who took selfies in the Rotunda on January 6th, having walked through an already opened door, somehow more aware of what they are doing than a left-wing protester who planned to do what they did? It doesn't make sense, and it's obvious the government simply doesn't care that it is applying the law in such a biased fashion.

Returning to Bowman, he pulled a fire alarm during a voting session in the House of Representatives. Congressional members had to be evacuated, and the vote was postponed. That is a textbook example of obstructing an official proceeding, and the government's justification for not charging him is basically "because we say it doesn't count."
...

It looks like the justices have exposed a dual justice system that targets conservative demonstrations and ignores liberal ones.  It is hard to see how the argument of the DOJ can prevail.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t...
Read more

Is the F-35 obsolete?

Headline USA: Pentagon Fires Back after Musk Calls Its Most Expensive Project ‘Obsolete’ 'Yeah, as I'm sure you can appreciate, Mr. Musk is, currently, a private citizen, I'm not going to make any comments about what a private citizen may have to say about the F-35....'   ... ... Drones appear to be replacing jets for many operations.  The Russia-Ukraine war is an example of that.  Drones are often hard to detect and can be used for intelligence operations as well as for attacking enemy targets.  It would not surprise me to see drones engaging other drones in combat.  They also cost much less than manned fighters.  
Read more