Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

Igel

(36,359 posts)

16. The legislative record and the surrounding text

Reply to JohnSJ (Reply #11)

Fri Jun 28, 2024, 11:52 AM

Jun 2024

all apply to judicial proceedings.

This would be saying the statute has parts that are

judicial
judicial
judicial
judicial
judicial
judicial
judicial
judicial
judicial
judicial
judicial
judicial
judicial and legislative
judicial
judicial
judicial
judicial
judicial
judicial
judicial
judicial
judicial
judicial.

Rules of construal don't like that kind of exceptionalism. So while it might be something desired, it was always a hail-Mary pass.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

rictofen

24 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Supreme Court rules for Jan. 6 rioter challenging obstruction charge [View all] BumRushDaShow Jun 2024 OP

These rulings are political every day bucolic_frolic Jun 2024 #1

Jackson was in the majority. former9thward Jun 2024 #12

The statute had previously been taken to apply to judicial proceedings. Igel Jun 2024 #14

The SC is out of control Stuckinthebush Jun 2024 #2

The DEMOCRACY ending supreme court! bluestarone Jun 2024 #3

We don't have to wait for any more SC rulings mtngirl47 Jun 2024 #4

Note: Jackson was in the majority, Barrett joined the dissent. Nt Fiendish Thingy Jun 2024 #5

JMFC!!! underpants Jun 2024 #6

This relates to a single statute TexasDem69 Jun 2024 #7

It isn't political? I beg to differ. It is absolutely political. They know throwing it back to the lower court will JohnSJ Jun 2024 #9

Do you think Justice Brown Jackson agreed with this decision TexasDem69 Jun 2024 #10

She may not of ruled on "political grounds", but I think she is wrong on this. sarbanes oxley made it clear about JohnSJ Jun 2024 #11

The legislative record and the surrounding text Igel Jun 2024 #16

Thanks. Then they should have used a different act to charge JohnSJ Jun 2024 #18

Fischer was charged with four different offenses. This is the only one that has been sent back for further consideration onenote Jun 2024 #20

Excellent. Thank-you JohnSJ Jun 2024 #23

Those folks who won't vote for trump, implying, threatening or considering not voting for trump, better pull their JohnSJ Jun 2024 #8

Add this to the list of corrections to the law that Dems must make when they're back in the majority. n/t SpankMe Jun 2024 #13

now its ok to goto the captial and rip it apart just because u dont like the vote and u can get away with it. AllaN01Bear Jun 2024 #15

No its not. The decision's impact is limited. onenote Jun 2024 #21

So SCOTUS has now legalized storming the Capitol angrychair Jun 2024 #17

This is extremely alarming. The Grand Illuminist Jun 2024 #19

People need to stop freaking out. The decision's impact is narrow. See Weissman's article: onenote Jun 2024 #22

Not defending the U.S. or Marthe48 Jun 2024 #24