Vote for Biden and Democrats everywhere. Work on GOTV. Support The States Project, which is doing amazing strategic work creating Democratic working power in state after state.
I’m glad I read this tonight Mitchell. I saw it referenced on joyce vance’s Substack and thought I would wait until morning to read it but so glad I took the time to do so tonight. It should be required reading for SCOTUS. The textualists should all resign. There is no question that there will be protest at the Supreme Court this summer. If they grow in favor of Trump‘s having immunity, it’s going to be the hottest summer they’ve ever known. Thank you for writing this, but it needs wider publication.
Hi Dawna, I was being facetious when I stated that the Supreme Court of the United States members should be required to read Mitchell’s Substack post. Highest court in the land is showing bias and no amount of criticism will make them voluntarily come off their pedestal. Even reading Mitchell’s post will not make a dent. The only thing that I can think of that will wake up the conservative element of this club is public protest and I hope that happens on their front steps this summer. However, they are considering a case that would even prohibit that from happening. It’s the one that uses the Enron results.
🙇♀️🤗 The ‘by the seat of their pants, let’s do it our way, elite club’ formerly known as the conservative members of SCOTUS. And that’s not being facetious. That’s being descriptive of just exactly who they are. Hoping beyond help for protests on their front steps this summer. May we all go to jail overnight. They have no shame.
I think you are being too kind! The Repug SCOTUS are outright corrupt and in bed with their billionaire sugar daddies. NOTHING they are proclaiming at this point, isn’t derived from Libertarian goals of overthrowing this democracy. Clarence Thomas and Alito practically flaunt their contempt for the Constitution. . .
Easy solution. There were 9 District Courts. Hence the current number of Supreme Court Justices.
Now, there are 13 District Courts. If we apply the same logic as stated above, there should be 13 Supreme Court Justices.
That would negate the three Justices that took place under TFG’s “administration”. And the additional Justice would be the one that McConnell refuse to accept because we were in a election year.
In the common law, all felonies (murder, house burning, rape, etc.) were capital offenses, and the definitions allowed for little subtlety. Although the old Court of Kings Bench judges were proud of their crimson robes that symbolized their power of life and death over defendants, they were sometimes hesitant to apply the full rigor of the law in borderline cases and drew fine distinctions to arrive at a lesser included charge that spared the life of the defendant, who was often a miscreant deserving of some lesser penalty than life. That tendency was in the finest tradition of The Law (in the abstract).
Motivated reasoning to advance a political/ideological agenda is the polar opposite. The unjustly convicted participants in J6 were not the sightseers milling around for the spectacle wandering around aimlessly gawking at the spectacle. Those were the guys not coming to a complete stop at a red light at a deserted intersection.
I don't think I grasp what you're saying here. Are you being ironic? People who entered after someone else had beaten, battered and defeated the Capitol police and after someone else had smashed open the doors or windows aren't sightseers. They are part of the mob who members did all of the above This isn't like running a red light at a deserted intersection. If you insist on an analogy, it's more like a mob smashing into a store in order to loot it. If you find someone inside the store but can't prove they were about to take some of the store's goods, do you assume they were just admiring the spectacle? If you are part of a crowd (say, of demonstrators), and suddenly a group from the crowd smashes into a closed store to loot it, and say you have no interest at all in becoming a looter, what do you do? Probably move away from the scene of looting. If you're found inside, you can't seriously claim you were just there to enjoy the spectacle -- you should be charged at a minimum with entering and trespass.
Sorry to be obscure on account of the unfortunately tortured syntax.
There were people who walked over from the site of the incitement who were milling around gawking while the police lines still held looking very casual about things. These were not the crowd who broke the line, broke the windows and almost broke they election. I don't know if any of them were charged—I don't think any overzealous prosecutors were going for charges of "present at the scene," assuming that such a charge existed. My point was for someone who was in a technical violation of some law, the way it should work out is that the judicial system would find an interpretation that avoided locking up someone who hadn't actually done anything that could be thought of as wrong.
The ACTUAL felons don't deserve that kind of treatment to nip and tuck the law to get them off the hook on a technicality because, theoretically, a court thought that the political cause was good.
There are 6 conservative justices on the SCOTUS. You only identify Thomas as one of the possible skeptics and then refer to conservative justices in general. Did all the conservative justices engage in similar questioning to Thomas? If not, who did and did not. I seem to recall that Alito engage in similar questioning, which wouldn't surprise me, but what about the rest? And did any of the liberal justices engage in similar questioning? Your writing reeks of partisanship. Give us all the relevant facts, not your selective spin.
Gas lighting America and telling us what we SAW was “only” a riot or a “protest.” GO FUCK YOURSELVES, SCOTUS.
Right there with you. I'm fuckin FURIOUS
Tell me the right wing is doing anything other than a terroristic takeover of America and I will assume you are with them, on drugs, or both.
There is no justice.
Just us.
So now what?
Vote for Biden and Democrats everywhere. Work on GOTV. Support The States Project, which is doing amazing strategic work creating Democratic working power in state after state.
Don’t despair.
I'm not despairing, I'm mildly irritated. Certain parties are working on making me angry, though.
They may not desire that.
Take the reliable references/ articles you read, and spread the word within your circles. . . Make sure you are registered to vote.
I’m glad I read this tonight Mitchell. I saw it referenced on joyce vance’s Substack and thought I would wait until morning to read it but so glad I took the time to do so tonight. It should be required reading for SCOTUS. The textualists should all resign. There is no question that there will be protest at the Supreme Court this summer. If they grow in favor of Trump‘s having immunity, it’s going to be the hottest summer they’ve ever known. Thank you for writing this, but it needs wider publication.
Thanks. My Substack is new and has limited circulation. If you've found it helpful, I hope you will recommend it far and wide!
Indeed. I shall recommend it to SCOTUS. It should be required reading for them.
“Should” has no meaning with corrupt politicians. . . It’s left to us to spread the word.
Hi Dawna, I was being facetious when I stated that the Supreme Court of the United States members should be required to read Mitchell’s Substack post. Highest court in the land is showing bias and no amount of criticism will make them voluntarily come off their pedestal. Even reading Mitchell’s post will not make a dent. The only thing that I can think of that will wake up the conservative element of this club is public protest and I hope that happens on their front steps this summer. However, they are considering a case that would even prohibit that from happening. It’s the one that uses the Enron results.
“Facetious” always gets me into trouble!😉
🙇♀️🤗 The ‘by the seat of their pants, let’s do it our way, elite club’ formerly known as the conservative members of SCOTUS. And that’s not being facetious. That’s being descriptive of just exactly who they are. Hoping beyond help for protests on their front steps this summer. May we all go to jail overnight. They have no shame.
I think you are being too kind! The Repug SCOTUS are outright corrupt and in bed with their billionaire sugar daddies. NOTHING they are proclaiming at this point, isn’t derived from Libertarian goals of overthrowing this democracy. Clarence Thomas and Alito practically flaunt their contempt for the Constitution. . .
True.
Easy solution. There were 9 District Courts. Hence the current number of Supreme Court Justices.
Now, there are 13 District Courts. If we apply the same logic as stated above, there should be 13 Supreme Court Justices.
That would negate the three Justices that took place under TFG’s “administration”. And the additional Justice would be the one that McConnell refuse to accept because we were in a election year.
You think SCOTUS could not possibly sink any lower, and then—
It time to restack SCOTUS.
Well, emphatically yes and in theory (mainly) no.
In the common law, all felonies (murder, house burning, rape, etc.) were capital offenses, and the definitions allowed for little subtlety. Although the old Court of Kings Bench judges were proud of their crimson robes that symbolized their power of life and death over defendants, they were sometimes hesitant to apply the full rigor of the law in borderline cases and drew fine distinctions to arrive at a lesser included charge that spared the life of the defendant, who was often a miscreant deserving of some lesser penalty than life. That tendency was in the finest tradition of The Law (in the abstract).
Motivated reasoning to advance a political/ideological agenda is the polar opposite. The unjustly convicted participants in J6 were not the sightseers milling around for the spectacle wandering around aimlessly gawking at the spectacle. Those were the guys not coming to a complete stop at a red light at a deserted intersection.
I don't think I grasp what you're saying here. Are you being ironic? People who entered after someone else had beaten, battered and defeated the Capitol police and after someone else had smashed open the doors or windows aren't sightseers. They are part of the mob who members did all of the above This isn't like running a red light at a deserted intersection. If you insist on an analogy, it's more like a mob smashing into a store in order to loot it. If you find someone inside the store but can't prove they were about to take some of the store's goods, do you assume they were just admiring the spectacle? If you are part of a crowd (say, of demonstrators), and suddenly a group from the crowd smashes into a closed store to loot it, and say you have no interest at all in becoming a looter, what do you do? Probably move away from the scene of looting. If you're found inside, you can't seriously claim you were just there to enjoy the spectacle -- you should be charged at a minimum with entering and trespass.
Sorry to be obscure on account of the unfortunately tortured syntax.
There were people who walked over from the site of the incitement who were milling around gawking while the police lines still held looking very casual about things. These were not the crowd who broke the line, broke the windows and almost broke they election. I don't know if any of them were charged—I don't think any overzealous prosecutors were going for charges of "present at the scene," assuming that such a charge existed. My point was for someone who was in a technical violation of some law, the way it should work out is that the judicial system would find an interpretation that avoided locking up someone who hadn't actually done anything that could be thought of as wrong.
The ACTUAL felons don't deserve that kind of treatment to nip and tuck the law to get them off the hook on a technicality because, theoretically, a court thought that the political cause was good.
I don’t think anyone was charged who wasn’t in the building or seen fighting with the police.
Anything short of execution is too light of a punishment.
There are 6 conservative justices on the SCOTUS. You only identify Thomas as one of the possible skeptics and then refer to conservative justices in general. Did all the conservative justices engage in similar questioning to Thomas? If not, who did and did not. I seem to recall that Alito engage in similar questioning, which wouldn't surprise me, but what about the rest? And did any of the liberal justices engage in similar questioning? Your writing reeks of partisanship. Give us all the relevant facts, not your selective spin.
Roberts, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett also all seemed hostile to the government's position. Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson appeared to support the government's position. I'm responding to the apparent concerns of the conservatives, not giving a report on the argument. See SCOTUSblog for that: https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/justices-divided-over-jan-6-participants-call-to-throw-out-obstruction-charge/