Merrick Garland's Petulant Response to SCOTUS's Fischer Decision Is a Metaphor for Garland Himself

AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta

On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled that the Department of Justice had to use the law as it was written and not the way they wished it was written. The case was Fischer vs. United States, and it was a challenge by one of the January 6 political prisoners to one of the counts of his conviction.

Advertisement

In a 6-3 decision delivered by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court held that: "To prove a violation of §1512(c)(2), the Government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding, or attempted to do so." Justice Amy Coney Barrett's dissent was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

This holding reverses the D.C. Circuit, which had adopted a broader reading of the law in question to allow the charges against the defendant, Joseph Fischer, to go forward. The case will now return to the D.C. Circuit — which must assess whether the indictment holds up in light of this new and narrower interpretation.

At issue in the case was whether 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c), which prohibits obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations, includes acts unrelated to investigations and evidence, such as, for instance, the certification of an election.


BACKGROUND:

Supreme Court Hands Down Blockbuster Ruling in Case That Will Impact Multiple J6 Defendants – RedState

The Skinny on SCOTUS - 6-28-24 Edition: On Chevron, J6, and Unhappy Campers – RedState

SO GOOD: During Oral Arguments, Justice Gorsuch Goes There on January 6th Defendants and Jamaal Bowman


The case affects 247 of the 1,400 or so January 6 cases. It is the only felony offense in 52 cases, and 27 of those defendants are still in prison. That means each of those cases must go back for resentencing, and those charged exclusively under that illegal interpretation of the statute will be freed unless Attorney General Merrick Garland's thugs can come up with some other Republic-threatening offense like "crusing the grass on the Capitol lawn."

Advertisement

As might be expected, Garland was not happy.

“January 6 was an unprecedented attack on the cornerstone of our system of government — the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to the next. I am disappointed by today’s decision, which limits an important federal statute that the Department has sought to use to ensure that those most responsible for that attack face appropriate consequences.  

The vast majority of the more than 1,400 defendants charged for their illegal actions on January 6 will not be affected by this decision. There are no cases in which the Department charged a January 6 defendant only with the offense at issue in Fischer. For the cases affected by today’s decision, the Department will take appropriate steps to comply with the Court’s ruling.

We will continue to use all available tools to hold accountable those criminally responsible for the January 6 attack on our democracy.”

What a petulant and childish statement by a petulant and childish little excuse for a man.

The Supreme Court decision "limits" the statute to being used as it was conceived and as it is written. The fact that this case ever made it to the Supreme Court speaks to the dishonesty of Garland, his department, and all the judges who allowed this travesty to happen. Saying people who were waved into the Capitol by Capitol Police were guilty of "an unprecedented attack on the cornerstone of our system of government" shows how corrupt Garland is and how stupid he thinks we are. The fact that his department is still pursuing literal trespassers nearly four years after the fact is conclusive evidence that he has successfully converted what is allegedly a nonpartisan agency into some sort of Sturmabteilung devoted to the destruction of the enemies of the Democrat party.

Advertisement

A real man and someone overseeing the impartial administration of justice would've taken the "L" and moved on. But such a man would never have pursued nonviolent offenders for four years and misrepresented the law to convict and imprison them. If Donald Trump is still in the mood for vengeance when he reenters the White House in January, I hope he gives Garland a taste of his own justice.

Sponsored

Recommended

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on RedState Videos