Some "January 6th" defendants temporarily released after Supreme Court agrees to hear their cases

[Shaul]

At least two people convicted for "January 6th" cases have been released while their cases await being heard at the Supreme Court. Their challenge is based on a putative overly broad use of use of "obstruction charges". The results could affect many other January 6th cases.

Jan. 6 convicts released after Supreme Court takes up challenge to feds’ use of obstruction charge

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Therefore?

 

[Twilight Hue]

---

At least two people convicted for "January 6th" cases have been released while their cases await being heard at the Supreme Court. Their challenge is based on a putative overly broad use of use of "obstruction charges". The results could affect many other January 6th cases.

Jan. 6 convicts released after Supreme Court takes up challenge to feds’ use of obstruction charge

Let's hope justice prevails.

 

[Shaul]

Therefore?

Therefore, what? This is a discussion forum. Seems like a topical subject.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

At least two people convicted for "January 6th" cases have been released while their cases await being heard at the Supreme Court. Their challenge is based on a putative overly broad use of use of "obstruction charges". The results could affect many other January 6th cases.

Jan. 6 convicts released after Supreme Court takes up challenge to feds’ use of obstruction charge

These charges seem like a slam dunk to me: proceedings of Congress are explicitly included in the code's definition of "official proceeding," and if trying to stop the EC vote count isn't obstructing an official proceeding, I can't imagine what would be.

What grounds are they claiming for the appeal?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Therefore, what? This is a discussion forum. Seems like a topical subject.

And yet you have yet to discuss it.

 

[Revoltingest]

And yet you have yet to discuss it.

Neither have you.

I'll go.
This is an interesting development.
I hope it doesn't encourage copy cats.

 

[Shaul]

These charges seem like a slam dunk to me: proceedings of Congress are explicitly included in the code's definition of "official proceeding," and if trying to stop the EC vote count isn't obstructing an official proceeding, I can't imagine what would be.

What grounds are they claiming for the appeal?

The defendants had the charges dropped by the judge in their original trial. The Appellate court reinstated the charges. Without going into the minutiae of the law, it appears the Supreme Court doesn't agree with you that it is a "slam dunk" since they agreed to hear the case.

 

[Shaul]

This case could impact hundreds of January 6th cases. It also could impact the case against Trump.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The defendants had the charges dropped by the judge in their original trial. The Appellate court reinstated the charges. Without going into the minutiae of the law, it appears the Supreme Court doesn't agree with you that it is a "slam dunk" since they agreed to hear the case.

Again: on what grounds?

 

[Shaul]

Again: on what grounds?

That's not how the Supreme Court works. They don't state the reasons they take a case.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's not how the Supreme Court works. They don't state the reasons they take a case.

You misunderstand what I'm asking.

When someone makes an appeal, they prepare a brief to the appellate court making an argument that there was a mistake of law that impacted the decision made at the lower court.

What mistake of law are they claiming happened?

 

[Shaul]

You misunderstand what I'm asking.

When someone makes an appeal, they prepare a brief to the appellate court making an argument that there was a mistake of law that impacted the decision made at the lower court.

What mistake of law are they claiming happened?

There have been multiple filings from the petitioner and non-participant amicus briefs. There is no way, short of mind reading, to know which argument(s) prompted the Supreme Court to take the case. Feel free to read the documents filed in the case here,
Case documents

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There have been multiple filings from the petitioner and non-participant amicus briefs. There is no way, short of mind reading, to know which argument(s) prompted the Supreme Court to take the case. Feel free to read the documents filed in the case here,
Case documents

It would have been a lot quicker if you had just said "I don't know" and saved the hand-waving.

 

[Estro Felino]

It's worse than Fascism in the twenties.
At least during Fascism there were regular trials and people could defend themselves.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It's worse than Fascism in the twenties.
At least during Fascism there were regular trials and people could defend themselves.

These people all had trials.

 

[libre]

At least during Fascism there were regular trials and people could defend themselves.

You deny the German and Italian show trials?

 

[metis]

They don't state the reasons they take a case.

Then logically no conclusions should yet be drawn, plus we have no clue whether this would affect Trump's position.

What's so utterly bizarre is that we so many MAGAs who claim nothing serious happened on 1-6th and saying that it was just a nonviolent demonstration whereas a few got carried away and acted violently. Of course, Trump had nothing to do with this.

 

[Shaul]

Then logically no conclusions should yet be drawn, plus we have no clue whether this would affect Trump's position.

What's so utterly bizarre is that we so many MAGAs who claim nothing serious happened on 1-6th and saying that it was just a nonviolent demonstration whereas a few got carried away and acted violently. Of course, Trump had nothing to do with this.

Not true, actually. We can draw the conclusion that the manner these cases have been adjudicated is suspect. That is a conclusion.

 

[Shaul]

It would have been a lot quicker if you had just said "I don't know" and saved the hand-waving.

Since I did say that in several of my posts to you, it would have been even quicker if you had accepted my reply. You were the one that kept wasting time by repeatedly asking for the reason the Supreme Court took that case after I explained that reason was not knowable.