O.K. I have read a bit about how some of the judges asked questions in regards to this case. And I also did a deeper dive into the actual law.
First up the part of the law that is shown most in news report from the Sarbannes Oxley actually was a reform to part of an existing set of laws about tampering with evidence and witnesses in official proceedings. Which I read in full. And it clearly states that government proceedings are included. And it seemed to me that not only the reform (part c) but some of the previous law(part) should apply to the people who on Jan 6 attempted to stop or delay the certifying into the record of the presidential election results from the states by the vice president. It did not need to be successful to be a criminal. But there was a delay. Hence it was partially successful. And they were there also in an attempt to intimidate Mike Pence to not certify also a crime under this set of laws.
So, looking back on the questions of some of the justices I was quite confused that some seemed to be leaning towards finding a way to say that the actions on the 6th did not fall under this. Such as how broad is the law, Would pulling a fire alarm qualify and if so isn’t a 20 year sentence too long? Of course the second part of that is totally disingenuous since it is not an automatic sentence of 20 years it up to 20 years. And so far no one charged under these laws has received close to 20 years.
And then there was the whole you have to read the whole thing and connect them to see how they make a group. But they seemed at that time to be only reading the reformed part. Not the whole law. And saying it had to include a crime dealing with tampering with evidence and paperwork. But if you actually look deeper like did and find that that part of the act is a reform to a bigger law about tampering with witness and officials proceedings in general then this argument seems pointless.
And the pulling of the firearm and the asking about protesters at a meeting or a sit-in. Well those have always been handled differently at different times. Some have been left to protest. Others have been arrested for disturbing the peace. If the Supreme Court feels that they can’t trust local authorities to figure out when it is appropriate to apply certain laws then do we have a functioning society at all? I do fear that we don’t have a logically functioning Supreme Court right now.
ob the cuff 