Democrats are in full panic in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to explore whether or not J6 defendants can be charged with obstruction. 

According to Newsweek, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh called into question the DOJ's use of obstruction charges for potentially hundreds of J6 defendants in an appeal launched by a police officer who had been indicted for attending the J6 Capitol protest peacefully.

Depending on the final review of the charges, the implications could be massive both for hundreds of J6 defendants and for former President Donald Trump.

Among other charges he faces, the former president currently faces the same obstruction charge.

DOJ called out

President Joe Biden's Justice Department used the anti-obstruction provision of the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act in their relentless pursuit to charge as many J6 protesters as possible, even the ones who were just there to simply protest and nothing more.

Lawyers for Joseph Fischer, a Pennsylvania police officer, argued that the provision only served a specific purpose and has never been used in charges until now.

Newsweek noted:

Lawyers for Fischer argue the provision was meant to close a loophole in criminal law and discourage the destruction of records in response to an investigation and had never been used to prosecute anything besides evidence tampering until the Capitol riot.

In oral arguments over the matter, the high court's conservative justices called out the DOJ for applying the law to peaceful protesters in addition to the ones who entered the Capitol that day.

Justice Kavanaugh asked the obvious, reasonable question regarding why such a broad and weak charge was even necessary for many of the defendants.

"There are six other counts in the indictment here, which include civil disorder, physical contact with the victim, assault, entering and remaining in a restricted building, disorderly and disruptive conduct, disorderly conduct in the Capitol building," he said.

Kavanaugh added, "And why aren't those six counts good enough just from the Justice Department's perspective given that they don't have any of the hurdles?"

Triggered responses

Kavanaugh's question triggered an avalanche of angry responses presumably from the same people who truly believe "democracy is under attack."

"How is it that a Supreme Court Justice doesn’t know that the judicial branch does not get to dictate to prosecutors what crimes they can charge and what crimes they can’t?" one X user wrote.

Another X user wrote, "Well the answer is pretty clear - they tried to stop/obstruct a constitutional procedure. Why the word games?"