Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

SCOTUS' bizarre English language translation
Quote | Reply
This is in the 1/6 obstruction hearing. This is the language of 1512c1 and 1512c2:

Quote:
(c)Whoever corruptly—
[/url](1)
alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or
[/url](2)
otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

Certain Justices and the Plaintiff's lawyer seem to think that the "; or otherwise" means "other things done to a record, document, or other object," rather than the obvious "other actions unrelated to records, documents or other objects."

Sotomayor's response to that argument:

Quote:
Sotomayor says hang on a second, If there's a sign in a theater that says you can be kicked out for yelling or screaming, or otherwise causing a disruption, and you start a fight, seems clear you can be kicked out under the "otherwise" provision without needing to scream or yell.

Having a hard time understanding that this is anything but a weak post hoc attempt to find something on which to base their pre-determined decision.

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS' bizarre English language translation [klehner] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
klehner wrote:
This is in the 1/6 obstruction hearing. This is the language of 1512c1 and 1512c2:

Quote:
(c)Whoever corruptly—
[/url](1)
alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or
[/url](2)
otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.


Certain Justices and the Plaintiff's lawyer seem to think that the "; or otherwise" means "other things done to a record, document, or other object," rather than the obvious "other actions unrelated to records, documents or other objects."

Sotomayor's response to that argument:

Quote:
Sotomayor says hang on a second, If there's a sign in a theater that says you can be kicked out for yelling or screaming, or otherwise causing a disruption, and you start a fight, seems clear you can be kicked out under the "otherwise" provision without needing to scream or yell.


Having a hard time understanding that this is anything but a weak post hoc attempt to find something on which to base their pre-determined decision.


love her counter.

Just Triing
Triathlete since 9:56:39 AM EST Aug 20, 2006.
Be kind English is my 2nd language. My primary language is Dave it's a unique evolution of English.
Last edited by: DavHamm: Apr 16, 24 11:32
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS' bizarre English language translation [DavHamm] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
And as much as she tries to either prevent them from embarrassing themselves, or to make clear the absurdities they will go to in spite of embarrassing themselves, it is very possible they are willing to do exactly that, and to further erode the court, to help their team.

It really is sad.
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS' bizarre English language translation [DieselPete] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
DieselPete wrote:
And as much as she tries to either prevent them from embarrassing themselves, or to make clear the absurdities they will go to in spite of embarrassing themselves, it is very possible they are willing to do exactly that, and to further erode the court, to help their team.

It really is sad.

I find it frightening.

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS' bizarre English language translation [klehner] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
klehner wrote:
This is in the 1/6 obstruction hearing. This is the language of 1512c1 and 1512c2:

Quote:
(c)Whoever corruptly—
[/url](1)
alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or
[/url](2)
otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.


Certain Justices and the Plaintiff's lawyer seem to think that the "; or otherwise" means "other things done to a record, document, or other object," rather than the obvious "other actions unrelated to records, documents or other objects."

I assume the argument is that 18 USC 1512 deals with many methods of obstructing, influencing, or impeding official proceedings. Paragraph c specifically deals with records, documents, or objects, and therefore all the subparagraphs of para c also deal with records, documents, or objects.

Otherwise, why not just have para c. and get rid of the rest? Everything else in section 1512 could fall under "otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes..."

Legal language is frequently not plain English, it seems.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS' bizarre English language translation [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
slowguy wrote:
klehner wrote:
This is in the 1/6 obstruction hearing. This is the language of 1512c1 and 1512c2:

Quote:
(c)Whoever corruptly—
[/url](1)
alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or
[/url](2)
otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.


Certain Justices and the Plaintiff's lawyer seem to think that the "; or otherwise" means "other things done to a record, document, or other object," rather than the obvious "other actions unrelated to records, documents or other objects."


I assume the argument is that 18 USC 1512 deals with many methods of obstructing, influencing, or impeding official proceedings. Paragraph c specifically deals with records, documents, or objects, and therefore all the subparagraphs of para c also deal with records, documents, or objects.

Otherwise, why not just have para c. and get rid of the rest? Everything else in section 1512 could fall under "otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes..."

Legal language is frequently not plain English, it seems.

No, 1512c deals with the concept of "corruptly". 1512a deals with violence. 1512b deals with intimidation, threats or the like. 1512b explicitly says "Whoever corruptly" and follows up with two different cases: the 1512c1 is about documents and records, and 1512c2 is "everything else."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS' bizarre English language translation [klehner] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
klehner wrote:
This is in the 1/6 obstruction hearing. This is the language of 1512c1 and 1512c2:

Quote:
(c)Whoever corruptly—
[/url](1)
alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or
[/url](2)
otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.


Certain Justices and the Plaintiff's lawyer seem to think that the "; or otherwise" means "other things done to a record, document, or other object," rather than the obvious "other actions unrelated to records, documents or other objects."

Sotomayor's response to that argument:

Quote:
Sotomayor says hang on a second, If there's a sign in a theater that says you can be kicked out for yelling or screaming, or otherwise causing a disruption, and you start a fight, seems clear you can be kicked out under the "otherwise" provision without needing to scream or yell.


Having a hard time understanding that this is anything but a weak post hoc attempt to find something on which to base their pre-determined decision.


I'm reading that and Sotomayor's response and wondering is "otherwise" needed in both cases? As in:

"If there's a sign in a theater that says you can be kicked out for yelling or screaming, or causing a disruption, . . ."

Quote Reply