Doc Posted April 16 Posted April 16 Just now, The Frankish Reich said: Remember the conservative approach to statutory interpretation: we give effect to the words of the statute - the text - and don't try to probe the minds of the representatives and senators who passed the statute decades ago. And here, the Government wins: the words of the statute clearly encompass the conduct of those convicted under it based on their J6 activities. So maybe they should also prosecute Jamal Bowman. Sure. Fine. But that doesn't mean the prosecutions/convictions of the J6 rioters were illegal. Gorsuch is generally pretty firm on the law and the meaning of the words, so it's a little jarring here to see him go for a purely political point. I'm all for pardoning those who entered through open doors and did nothing but walk around. Anything more than that, no. 1
The Frankish Reich Posted April 16 Posted April 16 Just now, Doc said: I'm all for pardoning those who entered through open doors and did nothing but walk around. Anything more than that, no. I could agree with that. It would seem to be a fair result in those individual cases. There are various reasons the government brings prosecutions, and only one of them is punishment for a crime. Sometimes it's to deter other people from trying the same thing again, and I have to say that the deterrent effect should be clear.
BillsFanNC Posted April 20 Author Posted April 20 🎯 And it's precisely because all these things are hanging in the balance that Trump absolutely will not be allowed to win.
Recommended Posts