This is a Fischer news story, published by The Atlantic, that relates primarily to Frida Ghitis news.
For more Fischer news, you can click here:
more Fischer newsFor more Frida Ghitis news, you can click here:
more Frida Ghitis newsFor more SCOTUS news, you can click here:
more SCOTUS newsFor more news from The Atlantic, you can click here:
more news from The AtlanticOtherweb, Inc is a public benefit corporation, dedicated to improving the quality of news people consume. We are non-partisan, junk-free, and ad-free. We use artificial intelligence (AI) to remove junk from your news feed, and allow you to select the best politics news, business news, entertainment news, and much more. If you like this article about SCOTUS, you might also like this article about
obstruction statute. We are dedicated to bringing you the highest-quality news, junk-free and ad-free, about your favorite topics. Please come every day to read the latest obstruction statutes news, justice statute news, news about SCOTUS, and other high-quality news about any topic that interests you. We are working hard to create the best news aggregator on the web, and to put you in control of your news feed - whether you choose to read the latest news through our website, our news app, or our daily newsletter - all free!
federal obstructionThe Atlantic
•67% Informative
In Fischer v. United States , the Supreme Court ignored the clear language of a federal obstruction-of-justice statute to hold that rioters who breached Capitol barricades did not “obstruct or impede” the congressional proceeding to certify the election.
Frida Ghitis : This decision, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts , can’t be squared with the language of the statute.
She says the justices purport to believe in textualism, an approach to the law that says a judge should defer to the plain language as written by Congress .
Ghitis says the Court often pretends to deploy textualism in pursuit of its preferred outcome.
David Rothkopf : Justices argued that if it accepted the government’s interpretation of the statute, lobbyist might be charged with corruptly influencing a congressional proceeding.
RothkOPf: There’s no evidence that such abuses of the law occur or will occur. This law has been on the books for more than 20 years , and prosecutors haven’t brought the kinds of cases the Court claims to fear.
He says the Court 's assault on prosecutorial discretion may not be consistent with the statutory language, but it is consistent with another theme in jurisprudence: its attack on the executive branch.
VR Score
75
Informative language
80
Neutral language
23
Article tone
informal
Language
English
Language complexity
58
Offensive language
possibly offensive
Hate speech
not hateful
Attention-grabbing headline
detected
Known propaganda techniques
detected
Time-value
short-lived
External references
5
Source diversity
1
Affiliate links
no affiliate links