Our unelected superlegislature to act to let Republican insurrectionists off the hook

Here is the relevant clause of the statute that has been used to convict dozens of 1/6 insurrectionists for their material efforts to obstruct official business:

The actions of the 1/6 insurrectionists who were trying to stop the certification of the presidential election clearly fall into the plain language of section 2. The Supreme Court’s “textualists,” however, appear to be poised to hold that when Congress said “or” it actually meant “and.” I wish I was joking about this:

What all six justices seemed tempted to do was rip up Section 1552(c) because it happens to include another sentence that applies to the destruction of evidence and other official documents. Jan. 6 rioters didn’t destroy evidence, this argument goes, so they can’t be culpable under a law. That reading is untenable, something Prelogar impressively reinforced at every turn on Tuesday, but it may be attractive if a majority wants to defuse this statute before it’s used against Trump in a court of law.

Once you’ve held that Congress authorizing the Secretary of Education to “waive or modify” student loan payments did not entail the power to modify student loan payments [if the Secretary was appointed by Uncle Joe Brandon], any other statutory misreading becomes easy. After all, if the text of a statute does not lead to the policy outcome preferred by contemporary Republicans, so much worse for the statute. The textualists!

It’s also quite the amazing coinky-dink that the spouse of one of the justices who did not recuse happened to be an active participant in the autogolpe in question.