Or does the article mean the entire court?

I am being only a little sarcastic. If the division is among the 6 fascists, there's a chance the traitors who attacked our country will continue to get the punishment they richly deserve. If division is among all 9 of the (formerly) supreme court are divided, then justice is a toss-up. Guess we'll see.

that they are hairsplitting over something unambiguous.

but the provision is written in broad terms.

At least part of what the law meant to accomplish was to address a gap in the federal criminal code: It was a crime to persuade others to destroy records relevant to an investigation or official proceeding but not to do so oneself. The law sought to close that gap.

It did that in a two-part provision. The first part makes it a crime to corruptly alter, destroy or conceal evidence to frustrate official proceedings. The second part, at issue in Mr. Fischer’s case, makes it a crime “otherwise” to corruptly obstruct, influence or impede any official proceeding.

The heart of the case is at the pivot from the first part to the second. The ordinary meaning of “otherwise,” prosecutors say, is “in a different manner.” That means, they say, that the obstruction of official proceedings need not involve the destruction of evidence. The second part, they say, is broad catchall applying to all sorts of conduct.'

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/16/us/supreme-court-jan-6-trump.html

They seem too be doing what we lawyers do, 'hairsplitting' or not. I'm enjoying reading about the argument.

of our Government, for an insurrectionist violent poor sport lying loser.

It could not be any clearer, what is wrong with this Democracy hating court.

So it was okay for the rioters/protestors to fight their way through police to illegally enter the Capitol building where reportedly they did millions of dollars in damage? The Supreme Court seems to be the ones splitting hairs.

The justices’ questions considered the gravity of the assault and whether prosecutors have been stretching the law to reach members of the mob responsible for the attack.

(NYT)

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/16/us/supreme-court-jan-6-trump.html

the exact same thing.

.
.
EXTREME SARCASM


.

They weren't peaceful protestors you fucking dumbasses. Remember the barricades set up when they overturned Roe v Wage? Their motto must be, "Protection for me but not for thee."

yesterday when he called in "sick".
He came in ready for battle today.
MSNBC played an audio exchange between Thomas and the attorney representing the government. Thomas was clearly skeptical of the Government's case.