"Catch of the Day: The Oral Argument in Yates v. United States"

As noted here, coverage of yesterday's argument regarding applying an anti-obstruction statute to destroying fish appeared to go somewhat bad for the government. There was concern the government could go nuts. A touch can be an assault too. Find the argument a bit stupid. The text to me is pretty clear and has been used broadly. And, the guy actually got thirty days. Is this some sort of backhanded 8A argument? I say more here.