When I was in law school, the Rehnquist Court was rolling back the rights of criminal defendants established by the Warren Court. The rollback started with the Burger Court, but the Rehnquist Court was even tougher on crime. That doesn’t appear to be the case with the Alito Roberts Court: It seems to depend on who the defendant is and what they’re accused of.

Oral arguments were held on Tuesday in Fischer vs. United States. The case involves a challenge to DOJ’s use of a statute barring obstruction of an official proceeding in a Dipshit Insurrection prosecution. Clarence Thomas *should* have recused himself from the case, but ethics aren’t his jam. The judicial malakatude, it burns.

Joseph Fischer was a police officer when he stormed the Capitol. In true Trumper fashion, he bragged incessantly about his presence at the scene of the crime against the constitution. That bragging led to his losing both his job and legal case, which landed him in jail.

This is the question facing the Supremes:

“Does 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c), which prohibits obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations, include acts unrelated to investigations and evidence?”

The statute contains a classic otherwise/catchall clause at its climax. Do statutes have climaxes? Discuss amongst yourselves. They have their own band:

Is that David Pecker on the Climax Blues Band album cover? I guess not: it was released in 1972 long before Pecker caught and killed the Stormy Daniels story.

The statute’s otherwise/catchall clause shows that Congress intended for the statute to be interpreted broadly. One would think that the so-called textualists among the Supremes would uphold DOJ’s use of the statute. Wrong. Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch only want to punish rioters they don’t like: Dipshit Insurrectionists good; BLM protestors bad.

I haven’t heard the hearing, so I’m relying on the kindness of experts like Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern as to how this case will be decided. It’s likely to be a 5-4 case whichever way it’s decided. I’m pro-prosecution on this case.

I’ve read the statute. The Court should defer to Congress which intended the statute to be read broadly. I’m no statutory interpretation wizard but this one is written in clear language. Holy shit, I’m channeling Felix Frankfurter who my favorite poli sci teacher at LSU always called the hot dog man. Come on down, Michael Combs.

The right used to denounce the allegedly results oriented jurisprudence of the Warren Court. If there was ever a results oriented decision it was Dobbs. It was classic Sam The Sham Alito & The Federalist Society Pharaohs. I haven’t typed that nickname in a minute or three, it’s a mouthful. Do computer keyboards have mouths? Discuss amongst yourselves.

I’ll consult with Louis Armstrong:

You say dipper mouth, I say computer keyboard. Let’s call the whole thing off.

Bitter tears are being wept about the impact of the Court’s ruling in Fischer on Jack Smith’s J6 prosecution of Defendant Trump. But that case can continue without these charges, which *are* on point with the statutory language. Did I just say statutory language? My inner lawyer seems to be taking control.

Help me, Canned Heat:

The fakakata absolute immunity case will be argued next week; on Thursday April 25 to be exact. I’ll be doing the instant analysis thing after the argument. Stay tuned.

A reminder that today’s SCOTUS majority are right wingers, not conservatives. They’re soft on crime; at least when the criminals are white Republicans. Sam The Sham Alito & The Federalist Society Pharaohs can go fuck themselves.

Finally, I have a confession: I have a crush on Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar. I have a fatal weakness for the combination of brains and beauty. Come on down, Dr. A.

The last word goes to the good old Grateful Dead: