SCOTUS to rule on obstruction of proceedings

[gatomontes99]

The following article has two narratives I would like to discuss.

It appears, after Tuesday’s arguments, that a majority of the justices will side with the insurrectionists — though it is far from clear how those justices will justify such an outcome.

Lets talk about the obvious first. Most of the protested on January 6th were just protestors. They didn't do anything violent. They didn't steal anything. They didn't destroy anything. So a law that is being used to send them to jail for up to 20 years j(ust because they were present) is a bit much. That seems to be where the court will go with this. They will narrow the definition of obstructing a proceeding.

But the other, more insidious issue, is the wording of this article. The article lumps everyone at the Capitol on J6 as an insurrectionist. That is factually untrue. Very few people were charged with insurrection. To call everyone that got charged with parading, obstruction, trespassing or any other crime, an Insurrectionist, is a blatant attempt to add emotionally charged language. The goal must be to dissuade all that might be sympathetic with people that are over charged. I'll vote that this writer at Vox is patheticly unprofessional and the editor that allowed this article is of the same ilk.

[Legato]

Vox should stick to making amplifiers.