“Why has no one been charged for disrupting the Supreme Court?”
    • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      7 个月前

      I’m not sure how or whether you gather that they are pretending that obstructing a government proceeding only applies to documents

      Because I actually read the article instead of immediately being like “buh whuubut BLM?!??!?!”

        • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.worldEnglish
          11·
          7 个月前

          It’s in the article that you ignored because you’d rather demonize BLM. Don’t bother me again.

            • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.worldEnglish
              1·
              7 个月前

              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.

                • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  1·
                  7 个月前

                  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?