Supreme Court January 6th Decision

Please understand that today’s Supreme Court ruling was not necessarily political, even though most will accuse the high court of being political. This is a legal issue that will set precedent. While they are making judgments about the January 6th riot, what they are really doing is looking at the power of government and does government have to follow the letter of spirit of law?

The law states “Whoever corruptly—

(1)alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or

(2)otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,”

The January 6th rioters do not fall under the first clause, they are being charged based on the second. While I have seen every episode of Law and Order since the beginning, I still am not a lawyer. However, it seems to be that “attempts to do so” covers the attack. Yet the Court got stuck on the word otherwise. Can a prosecutor use otherwise to refer to anything or does it mean they have to attempt to destroy documents? The spirit of the law would suggest yes, but by letter of the law it cannot be proven the rioters intended to destroy documents. The five conservative judges and one liberal do not believe prosecutors can be free with the use of otherwise; that in order to protect people from unlawful prosecution they must be specific.

It’s also important to note this only deals with the obstruction charge, they will still have to face other charges like assault.