1. #6761
    NEWS

    After January 6 and just days before Biden was inaugurated on January 20, the home of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito had an inverted flag flying outside of it.

    That flag was the symbol that Trump supporters were using at the time for “stop the steal.”

    The flag alarmed so many of Alito’s neighbors that they took photographs of it and some of them complained to the court which was considering 2020 election cases at the time.

    Alito tells the New York Times that his wife put it up.

    Jodikantor scoops

    Gift Link: bit.ly/4aqiRvx
    I mean wtf here a judge, well Alito blaming his wife here that was a direct correlation to a Jan 6th display.

    Of course above, perhaps Thomas is the most right wing, the most radical and most Trump boot licker is another to add to a broken system.

    The court has delayed and along with Cannon has likely pushed these past November election.
    Democrats are the best! I will never ever question a Democrat again. I LOVE the Democrats!

  2. #6762
    Quote Originally Posted by Paranoid Android View Post
    I mean wtf here a judge, well Alito blaming his wife here that was a direct correlation to a Jan 6th display.
    It's so fuckin on-brand for Alito to blame his wife, too. Dude is so fuckin predictable.

  3. #6763
    NEW: Chief Justice John Roberts refuses to meet with Senate Democrats about Alito's ethics issues, citing "separation of powers concerns and the importance of preserving judicial independence."

    This is more about the collapse of the Supreme Court and their new "above any oversight" attitude. I mean if you don't answer to at least the branch that makes the laws but oversees the judicial branch (supposedly) and nominations.
    Democrats are the best! I will never ever question a Democrat again. I LOVE the Democrats!

  4. #6764
    Quote Originally Posted by Paranoid Android View Post
    NEW: Chief Justice John Roberts refuses to meet with Senate Democrats about Alito's ethics issues, citing "separation of powers concerns and the importance of preserving judicial independence."

    This is more about the collapse of the Supreme Court and their new "above any oversight" attitude. I mean if you don't answer to at least the branch that makes the laws but oversees the judicial branch (supposedly) and nominations.
    I should find out where fans can send letters to Chief Justice Roberts so I can regularly remind him he'll go down in history as having overseen one of the most ethically compromised courts in US history and never let him forget that one time a lawyer took a shit and flushed while making oral arguments in front of his court.

  5. #6765
    Quote Originally Posted by Paranoid Android View Post
    NEW: Chief Justice John Roberts refuses to meet with Senate Democrats about Alito's ethics issues, citing "separation of powers concerns and the importance of preserving judicial independence."

    This is more about the collapse of the Supreme Court and their new "above any oversight" attitude. I mean if you don't answer to at least the branch that makes the laws but oversees the judicial branch (supposedly) and nominations.
    The entire point of separation of powers is that each branch is answerable to the others through checks and balances. What an absolutely bizarre stance to take.

  6. #6766
    Quote Originally Posted by Paranoid Android View Post
    NEW: Chief Justice John Roberts refuses to meet with Senate Democrats about Alito's ethics issues, citing "separation of powers concerns and the importance of preserving judicial independence."

    This is more about the collapse of the Supreme Court and their new "above any oversight" attitude. I mean if you don't answer to at least the branch that makes the laws but oversees the judicial branch (supposedly) and nominations.
    "Checks and balances doesn't exist!" Says one of the MAGA backed traitor judges.

    Dontrike/Shadow Priest/Black Cell Faction Friend Code - 5172-0967-3866

  7. #6767
    Quote Originally Posted by Drutt View Post
    The entire point of separation of powers is that each branch is answerable to the others through checks and balances. What an absolutely bizarre stance to take.
    The problem is that the judiciary by its nature is not supposed to act, just react. Of the three branches, they were the check on the other two and no one really thought there would be a need to check them.

  8. #6768
    Quote Originally Posted by Flarelaine View Post
    The problem is that the judiciary by its nature is not supposed to act, just react. Of the three branches, they were the check on the other two and no one really thought there would be a need to check them.
    What? No. Congress was set up as the check on the courts via impeachment.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudol Von Stroheim View Post
    I do not need to play the role of "holier than thou". I'm above that..

  9. #6769
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    79,843
    Quote Originally Posted by Ripster42 View Post
    What? No. Congress was set up as the check on the courts via impeachment.
    Yep. If we presume things go super well in 2024 for Democrats, and they end up with a majority in the House and 2/3 of the Senate, and they're all in agreement, they can punch through impeachments to remove any SCOTUS justice they want to from the bench. They don't even need to prove a case; like any impeachment, these are political proceedings, and "this justice is an unethical toad" is perfectly acceptable as an explanation beyond the simple voting process.

    2/3 of the Senate is the real barrier. It's possible they might even get a couple Republicans to back such a move in the Senate against the worst of them, like Alito and Thomas, because of their clear ethical hangups that are casting doubts on the ethical validity of SCOTUS and their decisions. They may ask for the replacements to be moderates at best in exchange for their votes, but this isn't out of reach, necessarily.


  10. #6770
    Quote Originally Posted by Ripster42 View Post
    What? No. Congress was set up as the check on the courts via impeachment.
    Well, true - I meant they aren't being routinely checked. Impeachment is a last resort.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Yep. If we presume things go super well in 2024 for Democrats, and they end up with a majority in the House and 2/3 of the Senate, and they're all in agreement, they can punch through impeachments to remove any SCOTUS justice they want to from the bench. They don't even need to prove a case; like any impeachment, these are political proceedings, and "this justice is an unethical toad" is perfectly acceptable as an explanation beyond the simple voting process.

    2/3 of the Senate is the real barrier. It's possible they might even get a couple Republicans to back such a move in the Senate against the worst of them, like Alito and Thomas, because of their clear ethical hangups that are casting doubts on the ethical validity of SCOTUS and their decisions. They may ask for the replacements to be moderates at best in exchange for their votes, but this isn't out of reach, necessarily.
    I doubt you can find 10+ Republicans who are not full MAGA at this point. I can see McTurtle cutting a deal, maybe Romney joining in, but beyond them?

  11. #6771
    Herald of the Titans tehdang's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    2,550
    Quote Originally Posted by Flarelaine View Post
    The problem is that the judiciary by its nature is not supposed to act, just react. Of the three branches, they were the check on the other two and no one really thought there would be a need to check them.
    In this case, their checks are still intact. Constitutional amendments supersede Supreme Court decisions (Legislative), the President appoints and Senate confirms (Executive, Legislative), and Congress may impeach (Legislative).

    What the Alito case raises is that some legislators, who should know better, think they can set another co-equal branches’ ethics rules. That’s not checks and balances, that’s meddling in the internal workings of a separate division of government. Co-equal, not inferior and superior branches. Like if Justice Roberts said he didn’t like how Schumer was running things in the Senate, and demanded Schumer defend himself to Supreme Court questioning. Not how it works, and not even a good proposed change. (And Schumer ought to write a very short letter laughing at Roberts if Roberts tried it)

    The nasty secret is that this is just political posturing. No leader wants to propose and advance impeachment, because they know they don’t have the goods. There is no good reason for any judge to recuse himself or herself, and the letters have done an adequate job explaining the basic facts. If they want to summon a justice to Congress, go vote to impeach them.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  12. #6772
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    In this case, their checks are still intact. Constitutional amendments supersede Supreme Court decisions (Legislative), the President appoints and Senate confirms (Executive, Legislative), and Congress may impeach (Legislative).

    What the Alito case raises is that some legislators, who should know better, think they can set another co-equal branches’ ethics rules. That’s not checks and balances, that’s meddling in the internal workings of a separate division of government. Co-equal, not inferior and superior branches. Like if Justice Roberts said he didn’t like how Schumer was running things in the Senate, and demanded Schumer defend himself to Supreme Court questioning. Not how it works, and not even a good proposed change. (And Schumer ought to write a very short letter laughing at Roberts if Roberts tried it)

    The nasty secret is that this is just political posturing. No leader wants to propose and advance impeachment, because they know they don’t have the goods. There is no good reason for any judge to recuse himself or herself, and the letters have done an adequate job explaining the basic facts. If they want to summon a justice to Congress, go vote to impeach them.
    Save your petulent hand wringing for people dumb enough to buy it. Thomas was literally being gifted by top Republican donors expensive vacations and other items and his wife is looped in emails of people planning the Jan 6th riot. He has since ruled on cases involving Jan 6th which since you have trouble following things is a massive conflict of interest. A normal judge ethically is obligated to recuse themselves. He did not.



    That's just one. There's more even outside of Alito claiming anything shady happening at his house is really is wife. The nasty secret is for all the crying Republicans did about activist judges and politicizing the judiciary that was their goal the entire time.
    “Logic: The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the limitations and incapacities of the human misunderstanding.”
    "Conservative, n: A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal who wishes to replace them with others."
    Ambrose Bierce
    The Bird of Hermes Is My Name, Eating My Wings To Make Me Tame.

  13. #6773
    Quote Originally Posted by shimerra View Post
    Save your petulent hand wringing for people dumb enough to buy it. Thomas was literally being gifted by top Republican donors expensive vacations and other items and his wife is looped in emails of people planning the Jan 6th riot. He has since ruled on cases involving Jan 6th which since you have trouble following things is a massive conflict of interest. A normal judge ethically is obligated to recuse themselves. He did not.



    That's just one. There's more even outside of Alito claiming anything shady happening at his house is really is wife. The nasty secret is for all the crying Republicans did about activist judges and politicizing the judiciary that was their goal the entire time.
    Thomas has repeatedly failed to recuse himself when people who have hired and are paying his wife have business in front of the court, and we only find out about this after the case is finished.

    This is a basic rule that the rest of the judiciary abides by, yet conservatives who are thrilled to have a heavily stacked, fairly activist conservative SCOTUS will fall over themselves pointing out how nothing happening is actually illegal or forbidden, and that even if Thomas maybe should recuse himself (that sounds good to say at least) he doesn't have to and it's fine.

    Meanwhile, we also ignore the Republicans consistently weaponizing the SCOTUS in bad faith because, "It's the Senate's perogative to keep a SCOTUS seat vacant for a full year in the hopes they can get a Republican in the White House to nominate a Heritage Foundation/Federalist Society trained, groomed, activist judge on instead." which yes is technically lawful and within the rules but can you imagine the unholy hellstorm these same folks would pitch if Chuck Schumer did the same?

  14. #6774
    Herald of the Titans tehdang's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    2,550
    Quote Originally Posted by shimerra View Post
    Save your petulent hand wringing for people dumb enough to buy it. Thomas was literally being gifted by top Republican donors expensive vacations and other items and his wife is looped in emails of people planning the Jan 6th riot. He has since ruled on cases involving Jan 6th which since you have trouble following things is a massive conflict of interest. A normal judge ethically is obligated to recuse themselves. He did not.
    A normal answer would be that husbands are not responsible for the behavior of their wives, and that retreating to a pre-feminist world where husbands had an ethical responsibility to control their wives is not a sign of progress.

    And I see we have the “throw shit at the wall” argument. Can’t have rich friends in America. Sorry, can’t have rich friends if your friends are Republican.



    That's just one. There's more even outside of Alito claiming anything shady happening at his house is really is wife. The nasty secret is for all the crying Republicans did about activist judges and politicizing the judiciary that was their goal the entire time.
    Nah. The evidence is in shambles, and the logic is trash. People that want Supreme Court justices to be January 6th rioters are grasping at straw … grasping at flagpoles, I guess … because they want it to be true so, so badly. Normal Americans can see neighbors acting like fucking clowns calling her a c-word and posting demeaning signs, and fail to conclude that there’s hidden motives beyond it. (The January 6th narrative may be simply projection in typecasting. A mid thirties woman with a pandemic puppy living in her parents house along with her boyfriend is a little too perfect for instigating and asserting January 6th connections).
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  15. #6775
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    A normal answer would be that husbands are not responsible for the behavior of their wives, and that retreating to a pre-feminist world where husbands had an ethical responsibility to control their wives is not a sign of progress.

    And I see we have the “throw shit at the wall” argument. Can’t have rich friends in America. Sorry, can’t have rich friends if your friends are Republican.
    Casual reminder that recusal based on a spouses profession/connections with someone who has business in front of the court is part of the code of ethics for other federal judges.

    Casual reminder that both Ginni and Clarence have repeatedly and extensively discussed how the two talk about their work extensively.

    This argument only works if we assume Ginni and Clarence never speak about their respective jobs to each other, and even then wouldn't even pass muster in literally any other federal court.

  16. #6776
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    A normal answer would be that husbands are not responsible for the behavior of their wives, and that retreating to a pre-feminist world where husbands had an ethical responsibility to control their wives is not a sign of progress.

    And I see we have the “throw shit at the wall” argument. Can’t have rich friends in America. Sorry, can’t have rich friends if your friends are Republican.
    ummmmmm no. That's not a normal answer and hasn't been since lawyers have been established as a profession. It's been pretty common place that Judges can't and shouldn't rule on cases that they have a conflict of interest in. Christ it's not even unique to only lawyers doctors are ethically obligated to not treat family members in certain cases because they can't be unbiased and patient care can suffer as a result. It's not unique to

    No one is saying Thomas control your wife. I certainly didn't and only an idiot could get that from my post. What is being said that you can't twist and pervert in your classic fashion is that Thomas shouldn't rule on matters that directly affect/involve his personal family members where he is likely to be biased in their favor. Biased judges are generally considered bad when they're supposed to weigh the facts.


    You do realize that bribery is illegal do you? Nothing is throwing shit at the wall. These people are frequently bringing cases before the Supreme court/donating to support those legal cases and they are directly giving money and gifts to a judge who rules on those cases. It is quite honestly insane you can't see the possible issue of a judge ruling on a case involving someone who is giving them large sums of money.


    Nah. The evidence is in shambles, and the logic is trash. People that want Supreme Court justices to be January 6th rioters are grasping at straw … grasping at flagpoles, I guess … because they want it to be true so, so badly. Normal Americans can see neighbors acting like fucking clowns calling her a c-word and posting demeaning signs, and fail to conclude that there’s hidden motives beyond it. (The January 6th narrative may be simply projection in typecasting. A mid thirties woman with a pandemic puppy living in her parents house along with her boyfriend is a little too perfect for instigating and asserting January 6th connections).

    The logic is trash......if you're an idiot. Again quite literally been the professional standard pretty much since the beginning of the rule of law in human society. Judges are not supposed to rule on cases they are personally involved in and your wife doing shady shit is a personal involvement.


    I never said the judges were rioters. Please stop continuously lieing about what is being said. it's particularly dumb when everyone else can read what I said. However, if a judge's wife is a rioter or involved in organizing it a 2 year old could see it's not the best idea to have them rule on that case. Judge Thomas's wife literally has correspondence with people involved in these cases and her statements/messages would be included in the evidence. Thomas is in a position where he gets to decide what happens to said cases aka his own wife. You think a husband isn't possibly biased towards their wife?


    Christ you and others lost your shit because a DA hired an outside attorney she once had a relationship with to review Trump's election interference and combed through every penny she spent with him to ensure government funds were misused. Now a judge's wife literally is involved in the correspondence being entered into evidence for these cases and you think nothing should be done? Dumbest thing I've ever heard and I've seen Trump speak.
    Last edited by shimerra; 2024-05-31 at 09:36 PM.
    “Logic: The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the limitations and incapacities of the human misunderstanding.”
    "Conservative, n: A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal who wishes to replace them with others."
    Ambrose Bierce
    The Bird of Hermes Is My Name, Eating My Wings To Make Me Tame.

  17. #6777
    Herald of the Titans tehdang's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    2,550
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Casual reminder that recusal based on a spouses profession/connections with someone who has business in front of the court is part of the code of ethics for other federal judges.

    Casual reminder that both Ginni and Clarence have repeatedly and extensively discussed how the two talk about their work extensively.

    This argument only works if we assume Ginni and Clarence never speak about their respective jobs to each other, and even then wouldn't even pass muster in literally any other federal court.
    If you refine some vague "connections" to actual employer with business before the court, I can find some agreement. But you're really on the wrong track. This kind of argument means that Ginsburg wouldn't have been able to rule on Dobbs or Casey because of her connections to pro-choice groups, or Sotomayor could be forced off cases involving Penguin Random House for taking a $3 mil advance from them for her book. Or Ginsburg's husband should've forced recusals from Ginsburg, since he practiced law at a firm that represented parties before the Supreme Court. Or Sotomayor's past comments on race-informed judgment means she must recuse from racial discrimination cases, because she can't fairly judge them. And Reinhardt (lib hero from the past) had his wife comment on an actual case that was being appealed to his court, but did not recuse because "views are hers, not mine, and I do not in any way condition my opinions on the positions she takes regarding any issues."

    It's just a fact that many judges are married to people in politics and public policy. It's not feasible nor desirable to enact what amounts to a marriage penalty.

    Reminder that the Supreme Court has had ethics rules regarding not allowing his/her family to influence official conduct or judgment, and disclosure of financial interests of his/her family in matters before the court.

    Quote Originally Posted by shimerra View Post
    ummmmmm no. That's not a normal answer and hasn't been since lawyers have been established as a profession. It's been pretty common place that Judges can't and shouldn't rule on cases that they have a conflict of interest in.
    It matters what the conflict of interest is. See my previous reply to another for more. Lawyers marrying other lawyers shouldn't be worried that their spouse will be part of a law firm whose partners may eventually be party to a case on the court. See, for example, https://eppc.org/docLib/20110106_RecusalPolicy23.pdf

    No one is saying Thomas control your wife. I certainly didn't and only an idiot could get that from my post. What is being said that you can't twist and pervert in your classic fashion is that Thomas shouldn't rule on matters that directly affect/involve his personal family members where he is likely to be biased in their favor. Biased judges are generally considered bad when they're supposed to weigh the facts.
    Nah, you need to better examine what you wrote. The only possible way you would point out that "his wife is looped in emails of people planning the Jan 6th riot. He has since ruled on cases involving Jan 6th" is if he is somehow responsible for his wife's actions. If you were including that accidentally, because you knew it was a non-sequitur, then you may tell me that.

    You do realize that bribery is illegal do you? Nothing is throwing shit at the wall. These people are frequently bringing cases before the Supreme court/donating to support those legal cases and they are directly giving money and gifts to a judge who rules on those cases. It is quite honestly insane you can't see the possible issue of a judge ruling on a case involving someone who is giving them large sums of money.
    This is throwing shit at the wall. If you had evidence that there was actual bribery going on, you would actually post that. Instead, they did not have business before the court, and people are allowed to go on vacation with friends that also donate to conservative causes.

    The logic is trash......if you're an idiot. Again quite literally been the professional standard pretty much since the beginning of the rule of law in human society. Judges are not supposed to rule on cases they are personally involved in and your wife doing shady shit is a personal involvement.
    Don't throw "wife doing shady shit" unless you're insinuating that husbands should control their wives better, because their behavior reflects on the husband. I swear, you pledge that you aren't rewriting feminist gains, and then continue to do so again and again.

    I never said the judges were rioters. Please stop continuously lieing about what is being said. it's particularly dumb when everyone else can read what I said. However, if a judge's wife is a rioter or involved in organizing it a 2 year old could see it's not the best idea to have them rule on that case. Judge Thomas's wife literally has correspondence with people involved in these cases and her statements/messages would be included in the evidence. Thomas is in a position where he gets to decide what happens to said cases aka his own wife. You think a husband isn't possibly biased towards their wife?
    If Alito's wife was being charged in a case before the Supreme Court, then you'd have a point. He cannot fairly decide on the constitutionality in criminal law where his wife is a defendant/plaintiff. She can have what conversations she pleases with other people.

    If Thomas or Alito think that their wives have been actively trying to influence their jurisprudence and compromising their impartiality, they can recuse themselves for that cause.

    Christ you and others lost your shit because a DA hired an outside attorney she once had a relationship with to review Trump's election interference and combed through every penny she spent with him to ensure government funds were misused. Now a judge's wife literally is involved in the correspondence being entered into evidence for these cases and you think nothing should be done? Dumbest thing I've ever heard and I've seen Trump speak.
    I mean a DA hiring the man she was having an affair with, an affair that started while he was still married, does implicate a little more than who your wife is texting or what flag your wife flew after the neighbor hurled expletives at her.

    Wake me up when Thomas hires somebody he's having an affair with, like Fani Willis did. And then lies about when it started, contradicted by testimony of friends. You're really reaching for relevance here.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  18. #6778
    Quote Originally Posted by Flarelaine View Post
    Well, true - I meant they aren't being routinely checked. Impeachment is a last resort.
    So this whole thing is about robert's not meeting with congressional leaders. The problem is that scotus has previously said that conducting investigations is part of effective oversite through impeachment. It's why nixon had to turn over his tapes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Thomas has repeatedly failed to recuse himself when people who have hired and are paying his wife have business in front of the court, and we only find out about this after the case is finished.
    Oh boy, wait til you hear about where most of the money in the robert's house comes from: his wife is a legal recruiter, which means she's a hiring consultant for and solicits business from large law firms. Guess who has business before the courts.

    That being said, thomas has refused to recuse himself from a case involving a subpoena for his wife's emails. Not other people paying his wife, his wife directly. It absolutely should have led to his impeachment and removal. Some people are corrupt and shouldn't be holding positions in the USG, and he's one of them. The US gov't is for some reason seen as sacrosanct. For some reason we treat gov't positions as this thing where we should need proof beyond a reasonable doubt before people are gone. That absolutely wasn't intended. Judicial ethics demand recusal when just the appearance of non-recusal impugnes the reputation of the court.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudol Von Stroheim View Post
    I do not need to play the role of "holier than thou". I'm above that..

  19. #6779
    https://www.politico.com/news/2024/0...ition-00161250

    The Supreme Court has rejected a petition from Owen Shroyer — an InfoWars host who traversed Capitol grounds with broadcaster Alex Jones amid the riot on Jan. 6, 2021 — seeking to overturn his misdemeanor guilty plea on First Amendment grounds.

    Shroyer accompanied Jones throughout the day on Jan. 6, helping lead the march from President Donald Trump’s rally to the Capitol while stoking the fury of thousands of Trump supporters who had just attended his “stop the steal” rally.


    InfoWars broadcaster Owen Shroyer, seen here at an abortion protest in Texas, lost a bid to contest his Jan. 6 guilty plea and conviction at the Supreme Court. | Sergio Flores/Getty Images

    By KYLE CHENEY and JOSH GERSTEIN

    06/03/2024 11:34 AM EDT

    The Supreme Court has rejected a petition from Owen Shroyer — an InfoWars host who traversed Capitol grounds with broadcaster Alex Jones amid the riot on Jan. 6, 2021 — seeking to overturn his misdemeanor guilty plea on First Amendment grounds.

    Shroyer accompanied Jones throughout the day on Jan. 6, helping lead the march from President Donald Trump’s rally to the Capitol while stoking the fury of thousands of Trump supporters who had just attended his “stop the steal” rally.

    Shroyer, unlike Jones, was charged with misdemeanors for what prosecutors said were his efforts to inflame the crowd, using a bullhorn, at the foot of the Capitol. Though Shroyer had claimed he was working with Jones to help calm the seething mob — and Jones was captured on video calling for calm and asking police officers for permission to address rioters to steer them away from the Capitol — prosecutors said Shroyer deviated from that path when he ascended the Capitol steps and exhorted the crowd with a chant of “1776.” Jones’ group, prosecutors noted, also ignored officers’ exhortations to leave Capitol grounds altogether.

    The justices turned down Shroyer’s case in a routine list of orders issued Monday morning. No justice signaled any dissent from the decision or commented on its rationale.

    Shroyer pleaded guilty last year to trespassing on Capitol grounds and was sentenced to 60 days in prison by U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee. Shroyer quickly vowed to appeal the sentence all the way to the Supreme Court, saying he had become a “martyr for free speech.” Shroyer’s attorney Robert Barnes did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday.

    Jones’ trek on the restricted grounds of the Capitol — as members of Congress and then-Vice President Mike Pence sheltered from the oncoming mob — has become a source of interest for investigators. His entourage included Ali Alexander, the founder of the Stop the Steal organization and organizer of events on Jan. 5 and 6. It also included Kenneth Chesebro, an architect of Trump’s bid to subvert the 2020 election.

    Several leaders of the Proud Boys, who were convicted last year of seditious conspiracy, also traded messages suggesting they had been in touch with Jones on Jan. 6, as they marched with their own allies toward the Capitol and helped instigate the breach.


    Jones, Chesebro, Alexander and others, however, were not charged for their own presence in the restricted area.

    Shroyer’s prosecution was unusual because most protesters who did not enter the Capitol building or engage in physical confrontations with the police have not faced charges. But prosecutors said Shroyer deserved to be treated more seriously because at the time of the Jan. 6 riot he was under a court order to stay away from the Capitol.

    That order stemmed from a prior criminal case against Shroyer where he was charged with disrupting a 2019 House Judiciary Committee hearing that led to Trump’s first impeachment. Shroyer was removed from the session after he abruptly jumped out of his seat and shouted, prosecutors said. The earlier case against Shroyer was resolved through a deferred prosecution agreement that essentially allows the case to be dismissed without a conviction if the defendant successfully completes a period of probation.

    The early phase of Shroyer’s Jan. 6-related prosecution drew judicial scrutiny into whether prosecutors were assessing whether suspects in the riot had legitimate claims to being members of the press.

    “Who watches the watchmen?” U.S. Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui asked in an August 2021 order demanding more information from the Justice Department about Shroyer’s status.

    Prosecutors initially rebuffed Faruqui’s inquiry, but later said they had considered Shroyer’s case under DOJ’s media guidelines and decided to proceed with it.
    Lots and lots and lots of connections between the various extremist and less-extremist groups and individuals who attended Jan. 6, and I'm glad to see consequences are still a thing.

    - - - Updated - - -

    https://news.berkeley.edu/2024/05/29...scholars-find/

    Americans are deeply divided over the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and it’s widely assumed the split reflects our bitter partisan conflicts. But a new study co-authored at UC Berkeley suggests one source of division stronger than any other: racial resentment.

    White people who perceive that Black people use race to gain unfair advantages, and resent it, were far more likely to question the need for the bipartisan U.S. House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack, according to the study co-authored by David C. Wilson, dean at the Goldman School of Public Policy.

    “Partisan politics are only part of the story when it comes to accountability for the events of January 6th,” Wilson said in an interview. “There is a strong racial component that is not only about prejudice but, more importantly, about how African Americans advance change and challenge status quo systems of merit.”

    The distinction between racial prejudice and the contemporary dynamics of racial resentment is crucial in the research of Wilson and co-author Darren W. Davis, a political scientist at Notre Dame University. Many white people perceive that people of color are advancing unfairly, and their resentment is an emotional response to perceived injustice, the authors write. And that, they conclude, is likely the “dominant explanation” for why many think the insurrection was justified and needed no investigation.

    In their analysis, the resentment syncs with support for former President Donald Trump and a message at the core of his Make American Great Again (MAGA) movement: that white people are unfairly losing out to groups that are getting advantages that they haven’t earned and don’t deserve.

    In that sense, the co-authors wrote, the “Stop the Steal” slogan “used in billboards and placards to promote the theory of election fraud, was also a metaphor for what was at stake for the country.”

    The paper — “Stop the Steal”: Racial Resentment, Affective Partisanship, and Investigating the January 6th Insurrection — is published in the latest issue of The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.

    Davis and Wilson, both professors and specialists in political psychology, are the authors of the 2022 book, Racial Resentment in the Political Mind (University of Chicago Press). In that volume, they argued that modern political divisions that are implicitly or explicitly racial are not solely about white racism. They repeatedly find that racial resentment inflames social and political conflicts that center on fairness, even when the issues have no obvious connection to race.

    The new research focuses that lens tightly on the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election, won by Democrat Joe Biden, but still fiercely contested by Trump and millions of right-wing Republicans who comprise much of the MAGA movement.
    More in the link, but seems like Jan. 6 was another "muh economic anxiety" moment for a great, great many who attended the "Stop the Steal" rally, which had more than one meaning.

    Obviously given that it's a UC Berkeley article it skews more leftward.

  20. #6780
    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/pol...use-rcna155964

    Two officers who defended the Capitol on Jan. 6 faced boos and walkouts by Republicans at the Pennsylvania state House as they visited the chamber, according to several lawmakers present.

    Republicans jeered at former Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn and former U.S. Capitol Police Sgt. Aquilino Gonell, who were introduced by state House Speaker Joanna McClinton on Wednesday as part of their tour across Pennsylvania to discuss the threat they say former President Donald Trump poses to democracy.

    Lawmakers' responses to the visiting officers underscores the deep division between how the parties view the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, as Democrats praised the former officers' heroism and Republicans booed, according to people present.

    "All Democrats stood and applauded the officers, while a majority of Republicans either remained seated — while not applauding — began booing or left the floor," said Majority Caucus Chair Mike Schlossberg in a statement. "I do want to be clear, there were absolutely Republican members who did applaud and stand. But a majority did not."

    Dunn and Gonell have been vocal in denouncing the Jan. 6 attack and criticizing Trump's rhetoric, and both invoked the former president in their statements about Wednesday's demonstrations.

    Both said it was "sad though unsurprising" that Trump allies "followed his lead in mocking the January 6 attack on the Capitol and embracing political violence."

    "It’s exactly why we’re out here campaigning for President Biden — because we and so many Americans are deeply concerned that history could repeat itself if Trump is not stopped," they noted in statements.

    Gonell told NBC News it was “shocking, but yet not surprising” that Trump supporting lawmakers would treat them that way.

    “They just walk out, began jeering at us, and turn their backs on us,” Gonell said. “They literally turned their back on us, and then they’ll probably go on TV and say they support the police.”

    Republican House Leader Bryan Cutler said that he "personally spoke to both of the former officers" on Wednesday, adding in the statement that he and other Republicans also took pictures with the pair.
    But wait there's more...

    Cutler attacked Democrats for using "their politicized actions in the House chamber to fundraise for their campaign coffers," referring to a fundraising email sent later on Wednesday.
    I mean...if Republicans hadn't decided to be pro-insurrection and pro-crime and hadn't chosen to boo law enforcement who defended our nations Capitol against a violent band of rioters who wanted to cosplay a revolution, there's be no fundraising email to send out.

    At every turn, the Republican party continues to make it clear that they have no respect for the law or law enforcement and that it's all just hot air.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •