On today’s BradCast: If only the corrupted U.S. Supreme Court cared as much about the exact words in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment (the “Insurrectionist Disqualification Clause”) as they pretend to care about the word “otherwise” in a criminal statute used to hold hundreds of January 6 insurrectionists — including the former President — accountable for obstructing an official government proceeding. [Audio link to full show follows this summary.]
But, first up today, a few news items of note…
- Yesterday, House Republicans formerly delivered two articles of revenge impeachment against DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to the U.S. Senate for a trial. Today the trial began and ended, as Democrats determined the articles contained no High Crimes and Misdemeanors as required by the Constitution.
- Despite pleas from Donald Trump and GOP U.S. Senate candidate Kari Lake for Arizona state lawmakers to repeal their draconian 1864 total abortion ban (which Lake long supported…until the all-GOP state Supreme Court revived the law last week), Republicans lawmakers in the state legislature blocked another attempt by Democrats to repeal the 160-year old territorial law.
- In Tuesday’s Democratic Primary runoff for Alabama‘s newly redrawn 2nd Congressional District, the popular progressive, Shomari Figures, easily won. The more important news, however, may be that Democratic voter turnout during the first round of voting last month on Super Tuesday doubled from two years earlier. That, after the state was finally ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court to redraw their unconstitutionally, racially gerrymandered Congressional Map to include a second district where Black voters may have a chance of selecting a candidate of their choosing.
Next, we’re joined by longtime legal journalist CHRIS GEIDNER of Law Dork News to discuss Tuesday’s Oral Argument in Fischer v. U.S. at the U.S. Supreme Court. The case questions whether a January 6th insurrectionist was properly charged with a 2002 law that criminalizes obstruction of an official government proceeding.
Some 300 of about 1,400 of those charged for their participation in the Trump-incited attack on the U.S. Capitol — including Trump himself — have been charged and/or convicted by more than a dozen D.C. federal judges under this same statute. But one of those judges, a Trump appointee, rejected the use of the law. He was overturned by the D.C. Court of Appeals, but the plaintiff — a police officer at the time — took his case to SCOTUS, which heard it on Tuesday.
Geidner was at the Court this week during Oral Argument and joins us today to explain how the hearing went; why this challenge over the the meaning of the word “otherwise” in the statute even exists; the rightwing Justices’ newly-discovered concerns about overcriminalization; whether he believes the Court will kill, narrow or allow the statute to stand as is; and how their ruling might affect both the cases for hundreds of insurrectionists and two of the four criminal charges that rely on the statute in Special Counsel Jack Smith‘s federal indictment of the former President for his multiple failed attempts to steal the 2020 election.
Geidner also offers a preview of next Thursday’s looong-awaited hearing on Trump’s ridiculous, rejected-by-every-lower-court, “Presidential Immunity” case, in which he asserts that all Presidents must have absolute immunity to commit any and all crimes they like while in office.
“The arguments advanced by Trump have no foundation in history, in practice, or in experience. And there is a very strong case for imagining that we will get a 9-0 decision in that case, even with this Court,” Geidner argues, before noting: “The bottom line here is Trump will still have delayed [his federal 2020 election interference] case. It will be at least May before we get a ruling on this. So, in some ways, win lose or draw, he has won, if the goal here is to avoid the possibility of a conviction on these charges before the election is held in November.”
(Comments are now closed.)