Democrats sunk the bulk of their 2024 hopes behind Joe Biden and fistfuls of legal proceedings against Donald Trump.
But in case after case, their plans are running aground.
And now the Supreme Court has just delivered a devastating blow to Joe Biden and the Democrats.
Supreme Court Justices express serious doubts over broad interpretation of law used to prosecutor January 6 protestors
Recently, the Supreme Court began hearing oral arguments in Fischer v. United States.
The case focuses on the Biden administration’s use of the Sarbanes-Oxley law to charge hundreds of Trump supporters of “obstructing an official proceeding” during the January 6 protests.
The law, which was passed by Congress in 2001, was primarily designed to address the destruction of documents and evidence during an investigation, making it a felony and carrying a 20-year jail sentence.
The bill was proposed in wake of the Enron financial scandal, where prosecutors found that executives of the energy company had successfully hid billions of dollars in debt from shareholders and investigators.
Biden prosecutors, however, are trying to twist and manipulate the language in the law to mean obstructing the count of Electoral College votes.
Not a single charged Trump supporter has been accused of destroying documents or evidence in the investigation.
Almost immediately, conservatives on the Supreme Court expressed doubt that Biden’s administration truly believed in their interpretation because they only used the law to target conservatives.
“There have been many violent protests that have interfered with proceedings. Has the government applied this provision to other protests?” asked Justice Thomas to the Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar.
Neil Gorsuch joined the inquiry, noting that liberal protestors have routinely disrupted hearings before the Supreme Court.
He also added that Congressman Jamal Bowman, a Democrat, pulled a fire alarm inside the Capitol Building to prevent the Republican-led House from voting on a bill to avoid a government shutdown.
“Would a sit-in that disrupts a trial or access to a federal courthouse qualify?” inquired Justice Neil Gorsuch. “Would pulling a fire alarm before a vote qualify for 20 years in federal prison?”
Prolegar responded by arguing that the Biden administration did have a right to weaponize the law against their political opponents.
She argued that all they should have to do is judge intent.
Plain text interpretation also fails to secure Biden administration’s case
The Supreme Court also expressed dissatisfaction with the Biden administration’s use of this law due to the plain text.
“Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the catchall provision must be read in context,” reported The New York Times. “Since the Jan. 6 defendants were not accused of altering evidence, he said, the catchall provision did not apply.”
“Tell me why I shouldn’t be concerned about the breadth of the government’s reading?” added Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
With the Supreme Court shutting down the Biden administration’s obstruction charge for an official proceeding in their January 6 lawsuits against Trump supporters, it spells serious disaster for the Democrats.
In Special Counsel Jack Smith’s political persecution against former President Donald Trump, two of his four charges are based on this same interpretation of obstructing an official proceeding.
This sets up the Supreme Court to completely undermine Smith’s entire case, shutting down the Democrat prosecutor from being able to use this strategy to bring felony charges in his January 6 lawsuit.