204
submitted 7 months ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

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.

[-] timewarp@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago

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.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Where do you gather that the court is sympathetic to the argument?

You've admitted they're illegitimate already. They're sympathetic to any argument as long as its application yields results Republicans want.

The justices are literally questioning the other components of the same law which clearly involves more than documents.

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?

[-] timewarp@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago

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.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago

This thread is now 4 days old, and the comment to which you responded is two days old.

You are trying to waste my time, and I'm not going to participate in this discussion any longer.

this post was submitted on 17 Apr 2024
204 points (94.3% liked)

politics

19096 readers
1920 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS