Supreme Court Argument re Obstruction

 

If the conservative majority of the Supreme Court is true to its commitment to textualism it must uphold the convictions of those who assaulted Congress on January 6 for the purpose of obstructing the official proceeding being held that day to declare the winner of the 2020 presidential election. The statute the court has been asked to interpret, by its explicit terms, makes  the conduct of the accused unlawful. And yet the tenor of the questions posed at the argument of the case suggest that the conservative justices are likely to so limit the scope of the obstruction statute as to make it inapplicable to the physical interference which prevented Congress from performing its duty. Compounding that inexplicable departure from their usual approach to statutory interpretation, is the fact that Justice Clarence Thomas, whose wife supported the attackers of the Capitol, and who therefore should have recused himself, seems to be leading the charge to absolve the obstructionists.
If the Court doesn’t get this right there is little hope that it will rule appropriately after it hears argument next week on the fraudulent claim of presidential immunity being asserted by Donald Trump.
The obvious partisan tenor of the Court’s conservative majority has already done grave damage to the Court’s reputation for integrity. Any further rulings of a similar nature will put that perception beyond redemption.