Maroc - RAWSTORY.COM - Raw Story - 28/Jun 15:48

'Huge and Ominous': Experts decry Supreme Court's Jan. 6 ruling as MAGA celebrates

A Supreme Court ruling that makes it more difficult to prosecute rioters who attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, was met with outrage on the left and cheers of celebration from the MAGA right Friday morning. "This is a big win for Trump," replied Fox News pundit Jonathan Turley. "It knocks out a substantial part of the case of Jack Smith against the former president."The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a former police officer charged with obstructing an official proceeding over the attack. Trump was similarly charged by the special counsel in the former president's federal election interference case. ALSO READ: The stunning reason Donald Trump thinks he’s going to winRep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) reveled in the ruling and reminded followers of the House Judiciary Republicans X account that he was among the Republicans who submitted a letter of support for defendant Joseph Fischer."The Supreme Court's decision is an affirmation of the rule of law and a reminder that Congress-not out of control prosecutors-writes the law," Jordan declared. Meanwhile, former federal prosecutor Christopher Alberto called the decision "HUGE & OMINOUS."ALSO READ: Republicans weaponizing ignorance is a dangerous gameThe ruling comes days before the Supreme Court is expected to rule on Trump's presidential immunity claim in the federal election interference case. Trump argued he is protected from prosecution by the office he held — but Smith says Trump used his public office to promote himself as a private citizen and therefore should stand trial as one.The legal watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington joined Alberto in bemoaning the court's ruling. "With today’s Fischer decision, the Supreme Court majority helped many insurrectionists dodge accountability once again," the group wrote. "If attempting to block the certification of the 2020 election isn't obstructing an official proceeding in the Court’s eyes, then what is?"