• Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    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.

      • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        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?

          • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 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.