SCOTUS Justice Goes NUCLEAR On Biden In Leaked Audio

In a recent Supreme Court hearing, Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar regarding the stark contrast in sentencing between January 6 defendants and left-wing protesters.

Gorsuch highlighted the leniency shown to many left-wing protesters compared to the severe sentences faced by January 6 defendants, stating, "Would entrance to a federal courthouse or a trial being disrupted by a sit-in qualify? Would a heckler at the State of the Union address or in today’s crowd qualify?"

The case under discussion involves former Pennsylvania police officer Joseph Fischer, charged on January 6 with "obstruction of an official proceeding." This case introduces a new legal doctrine, reminiscent of the Enron corruption scandal, specifically targeting January 6 defendants.

Gorsuch pointed out specific instances where left-wing protesters faced minimal consequences for similar behaviors, such as disruptions during Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s appointment. He questioned whether actions like pulling a fire alarm, as done by Rep. Jamaal Bowman, would warrant "20 years in federal prison," noting Bowman's lenient treatment.

Prelogar defended these differences, emphasizing the need to prove malicious intent, particularly in the case of January 6 defendants. She classified some disruptions as "minor" and suggested that proving corrupt intent is crucial, distinguishing between peaceful protests and those with malicious intent to obstruct proceedings.

The ongoing fallout from the Capitol protests includes over 1,400 individuals charged by the Biden DOJ, with ongoing searches and significant prison sentences for many defendants, contrasting sharply with the treatment of left-wing protesters involved in similar disruptions.