Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?


Supreme Court exposes Biden’s selective prosecution of political opponents

This article was originally published at Publications approved for syndication have permission to republish this article, such as Microsoft News, Yahoo News, Newsbreak, UltimateNewswire and others. To learn more about syndication opportunities, visit About Us.

Biden administration


During the recent oral arguments, Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito criticized the Biden administration for what they described as a biased approach to prosecuting protesters and rioters.

Fischer v. United States


The case in question, Fischer v. United States, centered around Joseph Fischer from Pennsylvania, who contested the charges against him related to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.



Despite Fischer facing additional charges of assaulting police officers, his argument that his actions did not constitute obstruction of official proceedings raised broader concerns for Gorsuch and Alito.



They highlighted the inconsistency in how the law, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c), is applied to over 300 out of nearly 1,400 Jan. 6 defendants.



The justices expressed confusion over the perceived selective enforcement of the law by Biden’s appointees, particularly in cases involving individuals deemed unfavorable. In contrast, they noted a leniency towards left-leaning individuals, including members of Congress, who disrupt government proceedings without facing similar consequences.

Elizabeth Prelogar


“Would a sit-in that disrupts a trial or access to a federal courthouse qualify [as illegal obstruction]?” Gorsuch asked Biden’s solicitor general, Elizabeth Prelogar. “Would a heckler at today’s audience qualify or a heckler at the State of the Union address? Would pulling a fire alarm before a vote qualify for 20 years in federal prison?”

Jamaal Bowman


Democratic Representative Jamaal Bowman from New York employed a fire alarm tactic ahead of a crucial spending vote on September 30. Despite pleading guilty to a misdemeanor offense with minimal repercussions, he openly boasted about not facing charges for obstructing House proceedings, which was evidently the outcome of triggering the alarm that led to an evacuation. This mandatory evacuation disrupted efforts to prevent a government shutdown.



When Prelogar’s efforts to differentiate between situations seemed ineffective and unclear, Gorsuch continued to push for clarity. He referenced the common phrase used by liberal media and others to describe urban riots, even those involving injuries to police, destruction of property, and significant damage to federal buildings leading to trial disruptions or relocations. Gorsuch somewhat mockingly asked why “a mostly peaceful protest … that actually obstructs and impedes an official proceeding for an indefinite period would not be covered.”

Prelogar struggled

NBC News

Prelogar struggled during the questioning, particularly when Alito raised similar points. At one juncture, she mentioned that in the context of a criminal charge under the relevant statute, “we would have to have the evidence of intent.”

January 6

NBC News

However, it is evident that a considerable number of the individuals involved in the January 6 riot, although aware that they should not have been in the Capitol building and could be held criminally responsible for trespassing or disorderly conduct, were unaware of the ongoing congressional proceedings and did not intentionally seek to disrupt them. Despite this, the current administration is pursuing severe legal actions against many of them.


NBC News

The issue at hand is not that the Capitol rioters should go unpunished, but rather that the Biden administration is selectively applying laws against unlawful protests based on ideological motives.



For instance, in 2020, Vice President Kamala Harris endorsed the continuation of violent riots following the George Floyd incident for a year, while also supporting organizations that sought to release convicted murderers from prison.

Biden Justice Department


The Biden Justice Department focuses on prosecuting innocent anti-abortion demonstrators while overlooking numerous attacks on pro-life facilities.

Domestic threats


It identifies parents as domestic threats but fails to enforce laws against protests at the residences of Supreme Court justices appointed by Republicans. Instances of such double standards are numerous and concerning.

Specific charge


While not all cases involve the specific charge of “obstruct[ing]” a “proceeding,” a noticeable pattern emerges. Under this administration, riots and disruptive protests aligned with leftist ideologies receive lenient treatment, whereas conservative demonstrations, even those that are non-intrusive, face harsh penalties.



This is not to dictate how the Supreme Court should decide on this particular case and law.


NBC News

Rather, it highlights how Gorsuch and Alito exposed the administration’s hypocrisy and unequal application of justice, visible for all to witness.

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You May Also Like