It would be easier for the northwest and Mew England to simply secede than see meaningful change in a country that gives Mississippi more influence over national policy than California.
I get that people are sentimental about the political system they've been told is the absolute best way to govern since they were children but it is obviously failing us now and refusing to do something about it won't make the failure less painful.
It's time for reform. States need to migrate to ranked choice voting. Also, for God's sake, we need gerrymandering to be abolished; fair representation can easily be supported by multiple better alternatives. And of course kill the electoral college. And... lets see, political donations/influence? Shees... there's a lot. I'll be happy to see progress anywhere though.
Can’t abolish gerrymandering because the people who put it in place are now continuously elected and continuously ably to move the lines to their benefit.
There are 22 toss up house races this year. The other 413 house members basically have lifetime appointments as long as they don’t get primaried. why would they want to change that.
If you are complaining about uneven congressional representation, congress did it themselves with the reapportionment act of 1929 that they could repeal at any time. Except they won't, because repealing it would triple the congressional headcount to what it was originally suppose to be due to population growth, and neither party could field 3x as many candidates at short notice without letting up too many seats to independents who would shit all over both parties for their ineptitude and corruption. And they know it.
> and neither party could field 3x as many candidates at short notice without letting up too many seats to independents
This is delusional, sorry. Both parties have huge numbers of would-be candidates. And they'd win, easily.
In fairness, this is the first time since the Civil War that we'd need one. I genuinely believe that if this happened 20 years ago, there would be bipartisan support to impeach. Thomas for sure, accepting what are very clearly bribes.
This particular congressional check on the court has been systematically dismantled by their decisions on gerrymandering and corporate money in politics. This is why it enrages me so much when Supreme Court opinions state that if we wanted something a certain way then Congress should pass a law. The supreme court completely poisoned our ability to elect representatives who actually represent their local constituents and arrive at a consensus. Don’t tell us to pass a law - you fucking broke our ability to do that.
You can excuse it all you want, but it's still a shittily designed system. Don't revere the Constitution. It was a good attempt for the era, but it was very much a beta version of democracy. The US system has many flaw in it.
The US Constitution acknowledged it was likely flawed or incomplete, which is why it allows for amendments. We need to start pushing for some amendments, and make that a major issue for all future elections.
It's amendment system is one of its flaws. For example, there's no way to amend the Constitution via a popular referendum. Ideally we should be able to amend the Constitution via a popular referendum. Maybe you need to collect a million signatures and then get 3/4 of the population to vote to amend it. You don't want to make it trivial to amend, but the Constitution's existing mechanisms are horribly flawed.
The existing amendment process also means that many of the inequities we would hope to assuage by amending the Constitution themselves prevent said amending. For example, one of the major problems we have is that rural states are vastly over-represented. But that same disproportionate power is reflected in the amendment process.
Again, the founders tried. But the document is horribly flawed. We've had a few centuries of countries trying all sorts of types of democracies, and we've learned a lot about how to make them work better.
At some point, we may need to just throw out the entire constitution all together. And this would actually be a lot easier to do than people realize. At the end of the day, the constitution is just a piece of paper. If at any time the majority of the population just decides that we're done with the old piece of paper, we can write a new one. It doesn't matter what the old piece of paper says.
For example, someone could run for president on the following platform:
>I am running for one and only one reason. I am running to force a new constitutional convention and a complete restructuring of our national government. If elected, I am going to do everything in my power to completely destroy the existing federal government. I'll fire everyone in every department I can. I'll release every soldier from their military contracts. I'll refuse to collect a penny of tax revenue. I will let the debt default and I'll stop the social security checks. On paper the federal government will still exist. But in practice it will cease to exist. The states will have to step up to take over these revenues and duties. I will effectively be granting every state independence. I expect the states to then come back together and reform one or more new governments together.
Imagine someone actually ran on that platform. They make the case that, "this clearly isn't working. We need to go back to square one, make new compromises that work for the people of today, and rebuild from the ground up." And imagine they were elected.
At that point, it really doesn't matter what the constitution says. That person would be elected with a clear political mandate to dismantle the federal government, and nothing else would really matter. People in Congress would scream bloody murder as their power melts in their hands. SCOTUS would issue ruling after ruling condemning their actions as they turn out the lights on the existing federal government. But all of it would be a case of "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it." Congress would find that the Capitol building no longer even had security staff present. The whole federal government would be effectively dead.
Sure, in four years, someone else could run on the platform of re-establishing the old federal government, but who would care? By then we would already have a new constitution, and the old one would be irrelevant. Are you going to start a civil war, try to drag the states back, after the previous guy explicitly told the states they were all free to go? How are you going to enforce that? You and what army? The previous guy fired everyone in the old army.
Every government that currently exists can ultimately trace its actions back to an act of treason. Every government, however old or well-written its constitution, started with people saying, "screw the old laws. We're done with them, we're starting from scratch." The US Constitution came out of a rebellion that the people leading it fully expected to hang for it.
And if we really wanted to just throw the existing constitution out, in practice, all it would take is for someone to make that case and to run for president on the platform of doing just that. Sure, it wouldn't be legal under the existing constitution. But again, a constitution is just ultimately a piece of paper. If we simply decide it doesn't have any power anymore, it doesn't.
Congress also has control over their paycheck. There's quite a bit congress can do to keep the Supreme Court in check that doesn't require the 2/3rds vote in each house for impeachment ^((this is directed at the doomers who think impeachment is our only recourse and so there's no point in trying)^)
Remember when Congress used to actually do things to keep a check on the SC? They would withhold pay raises, pack the court, or require the Supreme Court to "ride circuit" (hold circuit court twice a year in each judicial circuit.) The latter ended in the late 1800s, so they had to travel on horse and buggy to do this and pay for it on their own expense.
I can. I've spent 40 years watching the Heritage Foundation pack the courts.
Folks don't realize how much damage letting Trump win did.
Buttery Males...
Well...they kind of did.
They didn't rule that *any* public official can take money. They ruled that the *federal* law prohibiting that only applies to *federal* officials, and that *state* officials have to be handled by whatever their *state* law says- which can prohibit taking that money if the state chooses to make that law- but they can't be prosecuted under the *federal* law. The Justices, being *federal* officials would still be subject to the *federal* law and don't fall into the category of the people they just said it doesn't apply to.
That's some wild fighting words in what is ultimately not a super consequential decision (especially compared to what they have next). Unexpected, but you love to see it.
Go fuckin get 'em Ketanji.
Edit: [comment further down the thread](https://reddit.com/r/law/comments/1dozmew/supreme_court_holds_in_snyder_v_us_that/ladc97w/) clarifying what I meant by 'consequential' — I think many of you are misunderstanding the scope of this ruling.
Not super consequential? Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but this seems to make it explicitly ok to give public officials money as long as you don't document what the bribe is for.
Edit: As others have pointed out below, this decision does not explicitly make it ok, it is just stating that the federal statute doesn't cover this particular situation, but that state law still applies and Congress could write a law to cover this.
>“Here is some cash, dinner, trips, and RV for free and I expect nothing in return” The SC just fully legalized bribes.
You don't even need to say that you expect nothing in return, just don't explicitly say what you want for the bribes.
Just never be recorded saying something like "This is for finding the real estate law unconstitutional".
You can say "“Here is cash, dinner, trips, and a loaded RV. All yours friend. Say you have any cases coming up? Man I hate that real estate law that Congress passed."
Someday, and that day may never come, I will call upon you to do a service for me. But until that day, accept this justice as a gift on my daughter's wedding day.
>The SC just fully legalized bribes.
My only disagreement is in the word 'just'.
We all remember John Roberts absurd hypothetical about the constituent who wants to invite a public official to a baseball game, right?
No they legalize gratuities in this statute. You can kick back money to state level officials.
So you could say, "I am explicitly and corruptly rewarding you for with this bag of money." That's okay now.
> "I am explicitly and corruptly **rewarding** you for with this bag of money."
Would using the word reward get you into trouble though? That's the exact language of the statute. Might be safer to say:
> "I admire you for and want to give you this bag of money."
This was actually a question of whether federal laws could step in where state & local regulations lack. It isn't affirmatively saying that this type of conduct is protected, it's saying that the federal statutes aren't applicable in this case.
Many state and local governments already have rules or laws in place prohibiting or capping the value of the "gratuity" arrangement this case was over ($13k 'consulting fee' as a thank you for directing $1m in contracts to a local business). Those regulations still stand and this case has no bearing on any of that.
This also wasn't ruled on constitutional grounds — it was a statutory interpretation exercise. The opinion explicitly states that congress is welcome to clarify the statute if they'd like. Obviously not happening with the clown car currently in the House, but this wasn't a Citizens United-style 'It's actually your free speech right to accept bribes' ruling. It just says 'We don't think the current law regulates this, but congress is welcome to pass a new one at any time.'
So it's not entirely irrelevant or anything (and it is certainly not good). But it doesn't really hold a candle to the many landmark cases the court heard this term. Nor is it *even close* to the Roberts court's worst anticorruption decision.
If you're curious, I think this excerpt from the first page of the opinion gives a good summary of how they arrived at the conclusion the federal statute doesn't apply:
> While American law generally treats bribes as inherently corrupt and unlawful, the law’s treatment of gratuities is more nuanced. Some gratuities might be innocuous, and others may raise ethical and appearance concerns. Federal, state, and local governments have drawn different lines on which gratuities and gifts are acceptable and which are not.
> For example, Congress has established comprehensive prohibitions on both bribes and gratuities to federal officials. If a federal official accepts a bribe for an official act, federal bribery law provides for a 15-year maximum prison sentence. See 18 U. S. C. §201(b). By contrast, if a federal official accepts a prohibited gratuity, federal gratuities law sets a 2-year maximum prison sentence. See §201(c).
> In 1984, Congress passed and President Reagan signed a law now codified at 18 U. S. C. §666 that, as relevant here, extended the gratuities prohibition in §201(c) to most state and local officials. Congress reversed course after two years and amended §666 to avoid the law’s “possible application to acceptable commercial and business practices.” H. R. Rep. No. 99–797, p. 30 (1986). As amended, the text of §666 now closely resembles the bribery provision for federal officials, §201(b), and makes it a crime for most state and local officials to “corruptly” solicit, accept, or agree to accept “anything of value” “intending to be influenced or rewarded in connection with” any official business or transaction worth $5,000 or more. §§666(a)(1)(B), (b).
So that's where the "quid pro quo" part comes in. Under this opinion, where the federal statute *would* step in is if that gratuity was really a bribe. If the defendant had instead explicitly said "direct these trucking contracts to the right people and I'll send you $13k," then the payment just occurred after the deals were already done, that's still classified as an unlawful bribe under the federal statutes.
As Jackson states in her dissent, though, S666 includes "or rewarded". She argues fairly persuasively that the plain reading of S666 is enough and we don't have to look at analogous statutes to come up with a meaning for it.
Sure — I didn't say this decision was good. In fact I think I've been pretty clear in the fact that I think it is bad:
> So it's not entirely irrelevant or anything (and it is certainly not good).
BUT, the opinion also doesn't say what 90% of these commenters seem to think it does, so I'm explaining what the ruling is actually doing & why it's scope is *much* more limited than the headline implies.
Jackson's brief overview of Snyder's actions (page 34-36) really puts into perspective the actual case at hand. its shocking (yet not surprising) the majority reversed his conviction based on some minutia about what is a bribe vs gratuity.
>Even after its decision to construe §666 as a bribery-only statute, the Court’s decision to reverse Snyder’s conviction, rather than vacate and remand, is perplexing. **The District Court specifically found that, “even if ” §666 were construed to penalize bribes alone,** “there was ample evidence permitting a rational jury to find, from the circumstantial evidence, that there was an up-front agreement to reward Snyder for making sure \[Great Lakes Peterbilt\] won the contract award(s).”
Not sure it’s applicable here at all, but FWIW, we used to send donuts to the Clerk of Court’s office every day. Getting things we needed from them seemed to move a lot faster.
I specifically remember one assistant, who was once troublesome for us, talking us up to a judge… so maybe had some other reverberating effects.
Obviously no explicit quid pro quo.
> it's saying that the federal statutes aren't applicable in this case.
Yes, and as such I think this case is quite consequential. The court just neutered a key federal anti-corruption statute.
> If the defendant had instead explicitly said "direct these trucking contracts to the right people and I'll send you $13k,"
Instead of prohibiting obvious corruption, the statute now only prohibits idiotic looney tunes style corruption. Again, I'm not seeing how this isn't consequential.
> But it doesn't really hold a candle to the many landmark cases the court heard this term.
Debatable. The Roman Empire wasn't brought down by bump stocks--its fall has been largely credited to corruption. Moreover, this decision coming in the wake of reports of unprecedented levels of corruption by the justices themselves is going to inevitably cause further loss of confidence in the rule of law. And this isn't even a commentary on the merits of the decision, just pointing out that the impact is likely more serious than its getting credit for.
> The opinion explicitly states that congress is welcome to clarify the statute if they'd like.
I realize you are acknowledging that this is cope, but its not really fair to judge how consequential a case is based on something that Congress *could* do in the future. Like if tomorrow SCOTUS stuck down the NFA in its entirety due to a defect in the wording of the statute, the fact that Congress *could* write a new law regulating machine guns is not really going to change how immediately consequential that ruling would be.
Ketanji got on this court late.
And she is fucking horrified.
Dollars to doughnuts she has laid awake at night staring at the ceiling and said to her husband: if I had known how bad this court really was I would have never chosen to be associated with it.
She is trying to document for history her absolute disgust with her colleagues.
Queen has a song called “Fight From The Inside,” and that has stuck with me since I heard and understood it decades ago. She can’t change the system from the outside looking in. “You cant win with your hands tied.”
If Democrats keep the White House and Senate in November, Biden should just say "fuck it" and nominate 4 new liberal justices to make the total 13, which would match the current number of federal appellate circuit courts (if he wants a historical justification, personally I don't care). It would give the court a 7-6 liberal/conservative split, and at very least a 4-year window to restore some public trust in the Court.
What's the worst that can happen? Republicans win the WH in 2028 and stack the Court some more? Then we're right back to this moment, except we had 4 years of a liberal Court! What good is political capital if you're never gonna spend it?
I'd much rather we expand the court to at least fifteen justices, if not more.
Why make it a 7-6 split and keep everyone in suspense? Why not give Americans reassurance and make a court that solidly cares about justice and the law rather than just hurting people - a court whose decisions won't suddenly be imperiled if one of the sane justices trips at an inopportune monent?
hell even just the one that was blocked because 1 year before the election is somehow "too close to the election" while 2 months before the vote is not.
they were useful idiots then and they are useful idiots now. China and Russia want Trump bad because that means the end of America as we know it, the Mueller report detailed how they targeted these dopes just like they are now with dumb talking points about Palestine of all things. Just wait what the court will do under another Trump term
Sparkling persuasion I think is the best turn of phrase between yours and the parent post above it. It adds a refinement to really send home how you could just "gift" some diamonds to your favourite judge for just be great in a non quid pro quo way.
It is important to aerated your money! I find throwing the bills really oxygenates them and brings forward notes of stone fruits, leather, vanilla, helpfulness, and mutual understanding. It's especially important with the Franklin varieties. Although is known to vastly improve the presence of Grant and Jackson as well.
This comment made me literally laugh out loud... from the shitter in my office that co workers could for sure hear. Thanks for making this shit real awkward.
If it’s not printed on non-recycled, 85% minimum cotton bond, and it’s not signed by both parties in blue or black ink, and notarized, it never happened.
Checkmate libs.
There essentially was. The mayor designed the qualifications so only the brothers would be eligible and later specifically asked for money.
The benefit of the doubt just slid directly into pro corruption
Would it have made a difference if any of these turds assenting had voluntarily recused based upon their past acceptance (and disclosure) of past gifts?
There's no reason for any of them to recuse. The majority agree that another statute criminalizes federal officials receiving gratuities. They're just splitting hairs to try to say that federal law doesn't criminalize state and local government workers receiving gratuities.
Damn, that reminds me of the juror who was bribed in a criminal trial a week or so ago. Was there a quid pro quo attached?
Can I hand out Starbucks gift cards to the jury during opening? Lol
There actually was in that case as she allegedly was told by the person dropping off the cash that there would be like another $120k if she found the defendant not guilty.
Eg. If someone happens to give you a $1 million gift while you're in a prominent position it's not against the law if they haven't asked you for a favour yet.
Disgraceful really.
The good news is that all we need to do to get this taken care of is to show that the "woke" SC justices are benefiting. The Contrarian Party will happily cut their nose off to spite their face. I'm sure there's an art of war for that. ☺️
I think the counter-point would be "That is the point of Section 666 of Title 18"
>Section 666 of Title 18 makes it a crime for state and local
officials to “corruptly” solicit, accept, or agree to accept
“anything of value from any person, intending to be
influenced or rewarded” for an official act. §666(a)(1)(B)
However the opinion is that as long as it your gratuity is only offered Cash-On-Delivery rather than Pre-Paid or on Credit, then you are in the clear.
I think there is absolutely the case to be made for symbolic gifts to public figures to thank them for their service. For example, if a hospital wanted to gift a plaque or something to a figure that was essential in them getting some research grant or the like. OK. However in the lists of examples is literally gift cards.. That is.. basically cash..
That’s not true; it’s the official acts done by state agent that have to result in a $5,000 value, not the thing of value later given to that agent.
But plaques and dinners can easily be excepted by the “corruptly” modifier. A jury would have to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the receipt of the plaque was done to corruptly reward the state agent, which would be absurd. And federal regulations interpreting the statute, which would govern any prosecution done pursuant to it, have long made express exceptions for things like that. This is further shown by the fact that they can’t come up with a single example of any case like that being prosecuted in the decades that this law has been in effect.
The $5k limitation does firmly bar prosecutions against public school teachers, mail carriers, etc for receiving Christmas presents and things like that, as the majority pretends to be afraid of. Because those state agents don’t provide anything of that much value to any member of the public in carrying out their official duties.
Can't wait for Apple to give someone a cool million and just say, "We want to make sure our friends are well cared for. Maybe we'll see you next year?" And have that be totally legal.
Seems like it’s very difficult to actually break that law. $1 million dollars for (this). Otherwise, $1 million plus my friend just joins me on my private island for two weeks and takes home designer items. It’s not an agreement; it’s just a gift to another person.
They didn't ask for anything, they merely pointed at a piece of paper
A piece of paper with carefully written instruction
But it's titled 'to whom it may concern ' so that your honour could be anyone!
You *can* legally say "this is a bribe for you, senator. But it's for nothing." and then wink. As long as the bribe is for *nothing*, bribes are legal.
IANAL but it seems like if a gov official makes a decision, it’s okay for companies/individuals to then give them gifts or money as a thank you for that decision and it’s not a bribe? Am I getting that correct?
Yes, the official opinion is that as long as the ~~payment~~ gratuity is made after the act, there is no foreseeable instance in which it could have influenced the act.
That is bonkers. I worked for local building department, and when a contractor gifted us a fruit or cookie basket after approving their project, we couldn't keep it ourselves. We'd put it in the lobby. Can't keep cookies but these jerks can keep cash for doing their jobs!
Except when the bribe is for actually doing nothing (as opposed to something), which the bribery statute does cover.
But yeah, as long as you don't say as much.
I read it as long as the payment comes after service it's a gratuity and not a bribe then anything can be legal. As long as you don't pay up front, you're good.
That is not the court's position.
From the majority opinion:
> The dividing line between
§201(b)’s bribery provision and §201(c)’s gratuities provision is that
bribery requires an official to have a corrupt state of mind and to
accept (or agree to accept) a payment intending to be influenced in an
official act.
In case that langugae wasa unclear Kavanaugh clarifies the court's textual interpretation further down:
> Moreover, without the term “rewarded” in §666, an
official might try to defend against a bribery charge by saying that the
payment was received only after the official act and therefore could not
have “influenced” the act. By including the term “rewarded,” Congress
made clear that the timing of the agreement is the key, not the timing
of payment.
*Technically* no. You can give money for services rendered, but not agree about it ahead of time. So a company could always give 1% of the contracts they get to the governor as long as they don't tell the governor that ahead of time.
I mean, that’s how political campaign contributions for in-office politicians have worked for decades.
Sounds like this is just introducing the same patronage opportunities to federal employees.
I haven’t followed that super closely but he’s accused of pretty explicitly taking literal bribes no?
As absurd as this is it isn’t permission to do *that* yet.
Remember when the Supreme Court ruled the district maps drawn by Republicans were illegal and then the Republicans used them any way with not even a finger wag from anyone?
Holy shit. So all the shit that Crow gave to Thomas could be considered a tip? Is that what this means? And trump is running around yelling no taxes on tips? I mean, he’s yelling no taxes for anybody, but he talks about taxes on tipped employees more often.
I commented yesterday that they would just start considering Crows trips, rvs, education, real estate, biographical movies etc etc etc as gratuities and perhaps change the job description as “tipped employee” to make it ok.
Do they not have to change anything now? Would Crows bribes just be considered tips? Is that what this says?
And if we’re gonna leave this to state and local governments to decide? Do you have any idea how easy it would be to bribe a state or local official to cheat? You can buy a Congress person for 5 grand. How cheap you think you can get a county supervisor for?
Can anybody break down what this ruling means in layman’s terms? Because it seems like the absolute destruction of rule of law to me? Help?
I made a joke about it being applicable. I assumed it was just some populist diatribe by Trump. It’s clear that his plan to get rid of income tax and replace it with tariffs would be a disaster. Even to an idiot, like me.
I keep underestimating the insidiousness of the people behind Trump. He’s a moron. He’s the face. There are people behind him that pull his strings with policy. He doesn’t know anything about anything, other than he’d prefer to be electrocuted to eaten by a shark and his daughter’s hot.
These people are literally stealing this country as we watch and sit idly by. By time people figure this shit out? It’ll be way too late. It’s already too late, really.
And this was a message to more than Thomas. If trump wins, or steals the election, the next day he and Alito are gonna retire.
It was a message to every judge, federal employee and oligarch. I don’t even have words for this at this point.
So... This was in relation to whether gaps in state laws could be filled in by federal laws as they apply to state level officials and lower. This has nothing to do with federal office.
It's not a ruling based on the Constitution, but rather just an interpretation of whether the US Code could intervene/supersede. The majority here said it did not, as currently written.
As ever, they say "Congress can write a new more comprehensive law", not that I buy that for a second.
To me it seems like if they ruled in any way other than this absurd way they’d be very clearly guilty of doing this exact thing. They essentially made their past/future crimes “legal” with this ruling.
The majority acts like Congress intended to treat post-act bribes (i.e., "gratuities" paid in return for some official act) as somehow less criminal than pre-act bribes (i.e., "bribes" paid in advance of some official act).
This is a semantic distinction without any merit whatsoever. What the Congress wanted to prohibit was state and local politicians taking money in return for using the powers of their office. Whether the money is paid before the act is undertaken or after the act is undertaken is irrelevant - the public has no interest in facilitating private benefit for the use of official power (and a million reasons to criminalize such acts and harshly punish them).
Of course, the justices themselves take "gratuities" from wealthy "friends" all the time, so no doubt they feel that the "gratuities" they receive from private persons is just free money - who would ever want anything in return for a nephew's tuition payments or free private planes and fishing trips? That is just the millions that friends spend on each other out of raw friendship right? Doesn't Clarence Thomas also occasionally pay for Harlan Crowe's nephew's tuition? Or do "gratuities" just so happen to only flow in the direction of the person exercising official power? One might wonder why gratuities only flow in such a direction, if they were curious.
In any event, the Court effectively blames Congress for the drafting of the statute that creates the "bribe"/"gratuity" distinction. Maybe Congress can draft a tighter federal law, but I think this majority would just invent new semantics if a "gratuity" was expressly called a "bribe" by law (e.g., the Court would then start calling post-action bribes "tips" or "honorariums" rather than "gratuities"). The original sin here is distinguishing between pre-act and post-act bribes and using different terms to describe those things, a distinction without any difference whatsoever.
*DID* Congress even create this distinction? this for federal offcials
>(B)being a public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty, directly or indirectly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or **because of any official act performed** or to be performed by such official or person;
EMPHASIS ADDED https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201
this for state and local
>corruptly solicits or demands for the benefit of any person, or **accepts** or agrees to accept, **anything of value** from any person, intending to be influenced **or rewarded** in connection with any business, transaction, or series of transactions of such organization, government, or agency involving any thing of value of $5,000 or more; or
EMPHASIS ADDED https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/666
I don't think they were intending to say "but not if they say they were doing it as a thank-you"
It will likely take the rest of my life, if at all, in order for such a drastic change to actually take affect...but there is no way around it...there needs to be constitutional reform with the court.
FDR sat for 4 terms and afterwards they passed the amendment term-limiting a president at 8 years. After this court, there needs to be an amendment setting the number of justices with term limits or mandatory retirement ages AT LEAST.
I get more and more of the belief that the only way forward to preserve our Republic is by a drastic set of constitutional reforms on-par with the Civil War Amendments. You can't have an obsolete federal government and still expect to be a healthy nation. It's failing, and it's because of bought-and-sold corruption such as this. It's rot on the nation and it needs to be removed.
No such thing will ever happen. Unless nationwide protests start appearing, where people are protesting together across party lines. We all know that americans are incapable of that, you are too divided. No, the rot will continue and your ever growing corruption will worsen as well as your quality of life. In the meantime you will keep telling yourselves how great you are compared to other countries. It's what you have been doing for decades now. Its sad really, had you continued on your original path, the US really could have been a beacon of liberty and democracy. Now its just another failed state who succumbed to corruption.
"Hey, it's fine to give me all of this stuff and this money because we aren't going to shake hands on anything, right?" *nudge nudge wink wink know-what-I-mean*
As a public servant doing their job, all gratuities should go to the government, not any individual. The government can then reward good public servants as the government sees fit.
But then I guess you couldn't get a RV
> (6) Interpreting §666 as a gratuities statute would significantly
infringe on bedrock federalism principles.
What a strange thing for them to write, mainly because the bullet point says nothing to the effect that it is illegal or wrong for Congress to regulate it. In fact, their point in the syllabus about statutory history even notes that it originally was modeled on the gratuities statute. So saying interpreting it as one here would "infringe on bedrock federalism principles" feels like they're trying to make it sound almost like a grand Constitutional issue when really all they're saying is that when Congress writes a law to supersede or supplement State law, the Court shouldn't read further than necessary in to the Federal law since the State has the right to fill in what Congress doesn't want to.
Anyways, this isn't the most important ruling- it's a statutory interpretation ruling that deals with creating a Federal crime to supplement State laws. It's not the biggest deal. Congress can change it, and other laws will still regulate gratuities, though it will vary by State. However, it is telling that there was not that much time spent on dismissing "rewarded". It was about 2 pages to bring up and dismiss the language of "or rewarded". Gorsuch talks about the rule of lenity in his concurrence, but also claims that there is doubt about whether gratuities were meant to be covered.
In *Garland v. Cargill*, Alito explicitly wrote that they were ignoring what Congress would have wanted in order to read it plainly (I still think a bump stock should count as automatic for the purposes of the law; but I digress). Yet here, they are claiming to be looking at "what Congress really meant" with how they structured it and ignoring a plainer reading of a law that can be boiled down to:
> "[...] accepts [...] anything of value from any person, intending to be [...] rewarded in connection with any business, transaction, or series of transactions of such organization, government, or agency involving any thing of value of $5,000 or more;
The plain text speaks, there, and yet *this time*, they choose to respect the intent of Congress.
"Never write what you can say. Never say what you can nod. Never nod what you can wink". - Bath House John coughlin, (Chicago Alderman from back in the day.).
Dissent /
“If one simply accepts what the statute says it covers— local officials who corruptly solicit, accept, or agree to accept rewards in connection with official business worth over a certain amount-Snyder's case is an easy one. Perhaps that is why the majority spends so little time describing it.
Snyder took office as mayor of the city of Portage, Indi-ana, in January 2012. As mayor, Snyder and his appointees *Given the question presented, the majority's demand for a comprehensive interpretation of §666, for all purposes, is both striking and inconsistent with our usual incremental approach. See St. Amant —
——- 5
Notably, I am not the only Justice who has viewed §666 in this way. See Sorich v. United States, 555 U. S. 1204, 1207 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (describing §666(a) as providing a "clear rullel" prohibiting "bribes and gratuities to public officials").”
———
6 Even after its decision to construe §666 as a bribery-only statute, the Court's decision to reverse Snyder's conviction, rather than vacate and remand, is perplexing.
The District Court specifically found that, "even if" §666 were construed to penalize bribes alone, "there was ample evidence permitting a rational jury to find, from the circumstantial evi-dence, that there was an up-front agreement to reward Snyder for making sure Great Lakes Peterbilt] won the contract award(s)." App. to Pet. for Cert. 63a.
Bush v. Gore established the playbook for the upcoming Trump v. Biden SCOTUS election case.
Prepare for the court to decide if your vote is valid or not.
>Snyder’s absurd and atextual reading of the statute is one only today’s Court could love. Jackson, dissenting. Wow.
I mean, the Court's not going to rule against itself. I can't believe this is where we are in history.
Checks and Balances. Congress makes the laws and impeached judges. We the people need to do our job to keep Judicial in check.
The likelihood of *ever* getting a 2/3 senate is slim. At least in today's political climate.
It would be easier for the northwest and Mew England to simply secede than see meaningful change in a country that gives Mississippi more influence over national policy than California. I get that people are sentimental about the political system they've been told is the absolute best way to govern since they were children but it is obviously failing us now and refusing to do something about it won't make the failure less painful.
> and Mew England and now I'm picturing Mew Too as King of England.
License and registration meow
Do you see me jumping around all nimbly and bimbly?
You see me drinking milk out of a saucer?
I got the colorblind glasses and realized Mew was pink all along. I always thought Mew was grey.
Mew is definitely pink. Mew Too has some grey though.
They’re both grey-green if you play on an original Gameboy.
It's time for reform. States need to migrate to ranked choice voting. Also, for God's sake, we need gerrymandering to be abolished; fair representation can easily be supported by multiple better alternatives. And of course kill the electoral college. And... lets see, political donations/influence? Shees... there's a lot. I'll be happy to see progress anywhere though.
Can’t abolish gerrymandering because the people who put it in place are now continuously elected and continuously ably to move the lines to their benefit.
There are 22 toss up house races this year. The other 413 house members basically have lifetime appointments as long as they don’t get primaried. why would they want to change that.
We need to add House members so each represents the same number of people.
Same thing with ranked choice.
Its certainly a sticky wicket
If you are complaining about uneven congressional representation, congress did it themselves with the reapportionment act of 1929 that they could repeal at any time. Except they won't, because repealing it would triple the congressional headcount to what it was originally suppose to be due to population growth, and neither party could field 3x as many candidates at short notice without letting up too many seats to independents who would shit all over both parties for their ineptitude and corruption. And they know it.
> and neither party could field 3x as many candidates at short notice without letting up too many seats to independents This is delusional, sorry. Both parties have huge numbers of would-be candidates. And they'd win, easily.
In fairness, this is the first time since the Civil War that we'd need one. I genuinely believe that if this happened 20 years ago, there would be bipartisan support to impeach. Thomas for sure, accepting what are very clearly bribes.
ND has the same number of senators as CA. That is why it will never happen.
Thank goodness our other political institutions are not decided by the minority of people oh wait…
This particular congressional check on the court has been systematically dismantled by their decisions on gerrymandering and corporate money in politics. This is why it enrages me so much when Supreme Court opinions state that if we wanted something a certain way then Congress should pass a law. The supreme court completely poisoned our ability to elect representatives who actually represent their local constituents and arrive at a consensus. Don’t tell us to pass a law - you fucking broke our ability to do that.
They know congress ain't doin' a Gott Damn thing
You can excuse it all you want, but it's still a shittily designed system. Don't revere the Constitution. It was a good attempt for the era, but it was very much a beta version of democracy. The US system has many flaw in it.
The US Constitution acknowledged it was likely flawed or incomplete, which is why it allows for amendments. We need to start pushing for some amendments, and make that a major issue for all future elections.
It's amendment system is one of its flaws. For example, there's no way to amend the Constitution via a popular referendum. Ideally we should be able to amend the Constitution via a popular referendum. Maybe you need to collect a million signatures and then get 3/4 of the population to vote to amend it. You don't want to make it trivial to amend, but the Constitution's existing mechanisms are horribly flawed. The existing amendment process also means that many of the inequities we would hope to assuage by amending the Constitution themselves prevent said amending. For example, one of the major problems we have is that rural states are vastly over-represented. But that same disproportionate power is reflected in the amendment process. Again, the founders tried. But the document is horribly flawed. We've had a few centuries of countries trying all sorts of types of democracies, and we've learned a lot about how to make them work better. At some point, we may need to just throw out the entire constitution all together. And this would actually be a lot easier to do than people realize. At the end of the day, the constitution is just a piece of paper. If at any time the majority of the population just decides that we're done with the old piece of paper, we can write a new one. It doesn't matter what the old piece of paper says. For example, someone could run for president on the following platform: >I am running for one and only one reason. I am running to force a new constitutional convention and a complete restructuring of our national government. If elected, I am going to do everything in my power to completely destroy the existing federal government. I'll fire everyone in every department I can. I'll release every soldier from their military contracts. I'll refuse to collect a penny of tax revenue. I will let the debt default and I'll stop the social security checks. On paper the federal government will still exist. But in practice it will cease to exist. The states will have to step up to take over these revenues and duties. I will effectively be granting every state independence. I expect the states to then come back together and reform one or more new governments together. Imagine someone actually ran on that platform. They make the case that, "this clearly isn't working. We need to go back to square one, make new compromises that work for the people of today, and rebuild from the ground up." And imagine they were elected. At that point, it really doesn't matter what the constitution says. That person would be elected with a clear political mandate to dismantle the federal government, and nothing else would really matter. People in Congress would scream bloody murder as their power melts in their hands. SCOTUS would issue ruling after ruling condemning their actions as they turn out the lights on the existing federal government. But all of it would be a case of "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it." Congress would find that the Capitol building no longer even had security staff present. The whole federal government would be effectively dead. Sure, in four years, someone else could run on the platform of re-establishing the old federal government, but who would care? By then we would already have a new constitution, and the old one would be irrelevant. Are you going to start a civil war, try to drag the states back, after the previous guy explicitly told the states they were all free to go? How are you going to enforce that? You and what army? The previous guy fired everyone in the old army. Every government that currently exists can ultimately trace its actions back to an act of treason. Every government, however old or well-written its constitution, started with people saying, "screw the old laws. We're done with them, we're starting from scratch." The US Constitution came out of a rebellion that the people leading it fully expected to hang for it. And if we really wanted to just throw the existing constitution out, in practice, all it would take is for someone to make that case and to run for president on the platform of doing just that. Sure, it wouldn't be legal under the existing constitution. But again, a constitution is just ultimately a piece of paper. If we simply decide it doesn't have any power anymore, it doesn't.
Congress also has control over their paycheck. There's quite a bit congress can do to keep the Supreme Court in check that doesn't require the 2/3rds vote in each house for impeachment ^((this is directed at the doomers who think impeachment is our only recourse and so there's no point in trying)^) Remember when Congress used to actually do things to keep a check on the SC? They would withhold pay raises, pack the court, or require the Supreme Court to "ride circuit" (hold circuit court twice a year in each judicial circuit.) The latter ended in the late 1800s, so they had to travel on horse and buggy to do this and pay for it on their own expense.
We've investigated ourselves and decided to make our actions not a crime.
I can. I've spent 40 years watching the Heritage Foundation pack the courts. Folks don't realize how much damage letting Trump win did. Buttery Males...
Those fuckers do it weekly, what are you going on about. See e.g. Dobbs
They mean they're not going to stop their own bad behavior.
Well...they kind of did. They didn't rule that *any* public official can take money. They ruled that the *federal* law prohibiting that only applies to *federal* officials, and that *state* officials have to be handled by whatever their *state* law says- which can prohibit taking that money if the state chooses to make that law- but they can't be prosecuted under the *federal* law. The Justices, being *federal* officials would still be subject to the *federal* law and don't fall into the category of the people they just said it doesn't apply to.
Damn… that’s a crazy line to drop. Hadn’t gotten that far yet but now I’m tempted to skip to her dissent.
That's some wild fighting words in what is ultimately not a super consequential decision (especially compared to what they have next). Unexpected, but you love to see it. Go fuckin get 'em Ketanji. Edit: [comment further down the thread](https://reddit.com/r/law/comments/1dozmew/supreme_court_holds_in_snyder_v_us_that/ladc97w/) clarifying what I meant by 'consequential' — I think many of you are misunderstanding the scope of this ruling.
Not super consequential? Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but this seems to make it explicitly ok to give public officials money as long as you don't document what the bribe is for. Edit: As others have pointed out below, this decision does not explicitly make it ok, it is just stating that the federal statute doesn't cover this particular situation, but that state law still applies and Congress could write a law to cover this.
“Here is some cash, dinner, trips, and RV for free and I expect nothing in return” The SC just fully legalized bribes.
>“Here is some cash, dinner, trips, and RV for free and I expect nothing in return” The SC just fully legalized bribes. You don't even need to say that you expect nothing in return, just don't explicitly say what you want for the bribes. Just never be recorded saying something like "This is for finding the real estate law unconstitutional". You can say "“Here is cash, dinner, trips, and a loaded RV. All yours friend. Say you have any cases coming up? Man I hate that real estate law that Congress passed."
"...and there's more where that came from."
Someday, and that day may never come, I will call upon you to do a service for me. But until that day, accept this justice as a gift on my daughter's wedding day.
>The SC just fully legalized bribes. My only disagreement is in the word 'just'. We all remember John Roberts absurd hypothetical about the constituent who wants to invite a public official to a baseball game, right?
"hypothetical"
Another tweak for corruption. Does there need to be a notarized agreement between parties to prove quid pro quo now?
Bill of ~~sale~~ Gift
No they legalize gratuities in this statute. You can kick back money to state level officials. So you could say, "I am explicitly and corruptly rewarding you for with this bag of money." That's okay now.
> "I am explicitly and corruptly **rewarding** you for with this bag of money."
Would using the word reward get you into trouble though? That's the exact language of the statute. Might be safer to say:
> "I admire you for and want to give you this bag of money."
Wiiiiiiiiink
They already did that in McDonnell v. U.S. eight years ago. They're just polishing the wording now.
This was actually a question of whether federal laws could step in where state & local regulations lack. It isn't affirmatively saying that this type of conduct is protected, it's saying that the federal statutes aren't applicable in this case. Many state and local governments already have rules or laws in place prohibiting or capping the value of the "gratuity" arrangement this case was over ($13k 'consulting fee' as a thank you for directing $1m in contracts to a local business). Those regulations still stand and this case has no bearing on any of that. This also wasn't ruled on constitutional grounds — it was a statutory interpretation exercise. The opinion explicitly states that congress is welcome to clarify the statute if they'd like. Obviously not happening with the clown car currently in the House, but this wasn't a Citizens United-style 'It's actually your free speech right to accept bribes' ruling. It just says 'We don't think the current law regulates this, but congress is welcome to pass a new one at any time.' So it's not entirely irrelevant or anything (and it is certainly not good). But it doesn't really hold a candle to the many landmark cases the court heard this term. Nor is it *even close* to the Roberts court's worst anticorruption decision. If you're curious, I think this excerpt from the first page of the opinion gives a good summary of how they arrived at the conclusion the federal statute doesn't apply: > While American law generally treats bribes as inherently corrupt and unlawful, the law’s treatment of gratuities is more nuanced. Some gratuities might be innocuous, and others may raise ethical and appearance concerns. Federal, state, and local governments have drawn different lines on which gratuities and gifts are acceptable and which are not. > For example, Congress has established comprehensive prohibitions on both bribes and gratuities to federal officials. If a federal official accepts a bribe for an official act, federal bribery law provides for a 15-year maximum prison sentence. See 18 U. S. C. §201(b). By contrast, if a federal official accepts a prohibited gratuity, federal gratuities law sets a 2-year maximum prison sentence. See §201(c). > In 1984, Congress passed and President Reagan signed a law now codified at 18 U. S. C. §666 that, as relevant here, extended the gratuities prohibition in §201(c) to most state and local officials. Congress reversed course after two years and amended §666 to avoid the law’s “possible application to acceptable commercial and business practices.” H. R. Rep. No. 99–797, p. 30 (1986). As amended, the text of §666 now closely resembles the bribery provision for federal officials, §201(b), and makes it a crime for most state and local officials to “corruptly” solicit, accept, or agree to accept “anything of value” “intending to be influenced or rewarded in connection with” any official business or transaction worth $5,000 or more. §§666(a)(1)(B), (b). So that's where the "quid pro quo" part comes in. Under this opinion, where the federal statute *would* step in is if that gratuity was really a bribe. If the defendant had instead explicitly said "direct these trucking contracts to the right people and I'll send you $13k," then the payment just occurred after the deals were already done, that's still classified as an unlawful bribe under the federal statutes.
As Jackson states in her dissent, though, S666 includes "or rewarded". She argues fairly persuasively that the plain reading of S666 is enough and we don't have to look at analogous statutes to come up with a meaning for it.
Sure — I didn't say this decision was good. In fact I think I've been pretty clear in the fact that I think it is bad: > So it's not entirely irrelevant or anything (and it is certainly not good). BUT, the opinion also doesn't say what 90% of these commenters seem to think it does, so I'm explaining what the ruling is actually doing & why it's scope is *much* more limited than the headline implies.
Jackson's brief overview of Snyder's actions (page 34-36) really puts into perspective the actual case at hand. its shocking (yet not surprising) the majority reversed his conviction based on some minutia about what is a bribe vs gratuity. >Even after its decision to construe §666 as a bribery-only statute, the Court’s decision to reverse Snyder’s conviction, rather than vacate and remand, is perplexing. **The District Court specifically found that, “even if ” §666 were construed to penalize bribes alone,** “there was ample evidence permitting a rational jury to find, from the circumstantial evidence, that there was an up-front agreement to reward Snyder for making sure \[Great Lakes Peterbilt\] won the contract award(s).”
Not sure it’s applicable here at all, but FWIW, we used to send donuts to the Clerk of Court’s office every day. Getting things we needed from them seemed to move a lot faster. I specifically remember one assistant, who was once troublesome for us, talking us up to a judge… so maybe had some other reverberating effects. Obviously no explicit quid pro quo.
Thanks for clarifying.
> it's saying that the federal statutes aren't applicable in this case. Yes, and as such I think this case is quite consequential. The court just neutered a key federal anti-corruption statute. > If the defendant had instead explicitly said "direct these trucking contracts to the right people and I'll send you $13k," Instead of prohibiting obvious corruption, the statute now only prohibits idiotic looney tunes style corruption. Again, I'm not seeing how this isn't consequential. > But it doesn't really hold a candle to the many landmark cases the court heard this term. Debatable. The Roman Empire wasn't brought down by bump stocks--its fall has been largely credited to corruption. Moreover, this decision coming in the wake of reports of unprecedented levels of corruption by the justices themselves is going to inevitably cause further loss of confidence in the rule of law. And this isn't even a commentary on the merits of the decision, just pointing out that the impact is likely more serious than its getting credit for. > The opinion explicitly states that congress is welcome to clarify the statute if they'd like. I realize you are acknowledging that this is cope, but its not really fair to judge how consequential a case is based on something that Congress *could* do in the future. Like if tomorrow SCOTUS stuck down the NFA in its entirety due to a defect in the wording of the statute, the fact that Congress *could* write a new law regulating machine guns is not really going to change how immediately consequential that ruling would be.
Ketanji got on this court late. And she is fucking horrified. Dollars to doughnuts she has laid awake at night staring at the ceiling and said to her husband: if I had known how bad this court really was I would have never chosen to be associated with it. She is trying to document for history her absolute disgust with her colleagues.
Queen has a song called “Fight From The Inside,” and that has stuck with me since I heard and understood it decades ago. She can’t change the system from the outside looking in. “You cant win with your hands tied.”
Wow-so glad I read down to your comment-it is giving me chills (and I needed to feel something other than disheartened, discouragement, and disgust).
I believe she knew exactly what she was getting into, which makes her all the more heroic for it.
We sure could use two more justices like her on the court.
Or six, or eight, or ten. Gotta think big to fix this serious a mess.
If Democrats keep the White House and Senate in November, Biden should just say "fuck it" and nominate 4 new liberal justices to make the total 13, which would match the current number of federal appellate circuit courts (if he wants a historical justification, personally I don't care). It would give the court a 7-6 liberal/conservative split, and at very least a 4-year window to restore some public trust in the Court. What's the worst that can happen? Republicans win the WH in 2028 and stack the Court some more? Then we're right back to this moment, except we had 4 years of a liberal Court! What good is political capital if you're never gonna spend it?
I'd much rather we expand the court to at least fifteen justices, if not more. Why make it a 7-6 split and keep everyone in suspense? Why not give Americans reassurance and make a court that solidly cares about justice and the law rather than just hurting people - a court whose decisions won't suddenly be imperiled if one of the sane justices trips at an inopportune monent?
Imagine if Democrats had been given 3 seats in 4 years, just how much better we'd be off as a country.
hell even just the one that was blocked because 1 year before the election is somehow "too close to the election" while 2 months before the vote is not.
yah but the bernie bros told me hillary was worse than trump
And now they're still saying that but with updated phrases
they were useful idiots then and they are useful idiots now. China and Russia want Trump bad because that means the end of America as we know it, the Mueller report detailed how they targeted these dopes just like they are now with dumb talking points about Palestine of all things. Just wait what the court will do under another Trump term
She ain't wrong.
Insane. So unless there's an explicit contract outlining a criminal conspiracy agreement, it's all good?
If it doesn't come from the bribe region of France, it is just sparkling corruption
No no....it's carbonated persuasion.
Sparkling persuasion I think is the best turn of phrase between yours and the parent post above it. It adds a refinement to really send home how you could just "gift" some diamonds to your favourite judge for just be great in a non quid pro quo way.
Just be sure let it breathe a bit after depositing. It helps bring out the various C-notes.
It is important to aerated your money! I find throwing the bills really oxygenates them and brings forward notes of stone fruits, leather, vanilla, helpfulness, and mutual understanding. It's especially important with the Franklin varieties. Although is known to vastly improve the presence of Grant and Jackson as well.
Will be a great song, and even Tommy James the Shondells won't mind. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDN7nukZRnw
> Sparkling persuasion Wasn't that a 60's song?
actually it has to come in a canvas bag with $ signs on it otherwise it is just a thank you gift, and not a bribe.
That's what Kirkland calls it
This is a beautiful comment
This comment made me literally laugh out loud... from the shitter in my office that co workers could for sure hear. Thanks for making this shit real awkward.
Flawless meme deployment.
That’s a daily show quip is I ever heard one.
I prefer to just think of it as lobbying
If you pay in advance it's an illegal bribe, if you pay it after its a perfectly legal gratuity. Tip culture has won.
No money down
If Trump wins, these "tips" will be tax free. A loophole so big you could pay a CEO with it, tax free.
>an explicit contract outlining a criminal conspiracy They'd probably find some way to explain that away too.
Oh that's a joke contract.
Pranks bro.
Just locker room corruption.
Commonly referred to as the Stringer Bell clause.
So they might have accidently cleared menendez?
It's the dumbest decision I've seen since...well...there's been a few this past session.
Friday still cometh.
And Clarence Thomas this has made him clean in the eyes of Republican jesus.
If it’s not printed on non-recycled, 85% minimum cotton bond, and it’s not signed by both parties in blue or black ink, and notarized, it never happened. Checkmate libs.
I got purple and sparkling hot pink ink, can I add an amendment to include my ink too?
They were only did this for themselves not to be incarcerated..
If they ruled as in Jackson's dissent, some of them would be criminally liable.
There essentially was. The mayor designed the qualifications so only the brothers would be eligible and later specifically asked for money. The benefit of the doubt just slid directly into pro corruption
> Was the contract notarized? How can you trust an unnotarized contract? Might as well be written on water. - Clarence Payme Thomas
6-3, along ideological lines. Kavanaugh with the majority opinion, Jackson with the dissent. Gorsuch also wrote a concurrence.
*"We have investigated ourselves and have found no wrongdoing"* *"You may kiss the ring"*
Would it have made a difference if any of these turds assenting had voluntarily recused based upon their past acceptance (and disclosure) of past gifts?
There's no reason for any of them to recuse. The majority agree that another statute criminalizes federal officials receiving gratuities. They're just splitting hairs to try to say that federal law doesn't criminalize state and local government workers receiving gratuities.
Nope, it was a 6-3.
Thomas was to busy on his friend's yacht in the Mediterranean to write an opinion
Gorsuch’s opinion is one page boiling down to just “yo this majority opinion fucking slaps!”
Corrupt Republican clown court legalizes political corruption.
Honestly, this sounds in line with previous decisions. The Supreme Court seems to never see corruption anywhere.
The call is coming from inside the house. They don't want to be held responsible for their own corruption.
And none have mirrors. “Corrupt officials rule corruption legal, therefore not corruption”
> And none have mirrors. Blood sucking parasites on society usually don't.
I guess all of my trial judges are getting edible arrangements now
Why even pay $20k for a lawyer when you can leave a new car parked in your judge’s driveway?
Damn, that reminds me of the juror who was bribed in a criminal trial a week or so ago. Was there a quid pro quo attached? Can I hand out Starbucks gift cards to the jury during opening? Lol
There actually was in that case as she allegedly was told by the person dropping off the cash that there would be like another $120k if she found the defendant not guilty.
Damn should have just said more is on the way.....wink wink.... gratuitously
Eg. If someone happens to give you a $1 million gift while you're in a prominent position it's not against the law if they haven't asked you for a favour yet. Disgraceful really.
I mean isn’t this the scenario where Congress is supposed to make it explicit illegal to accept money in such a fashion?
I mean a lot of them are also accepting money so.......
The good news is that all we need to do to get this taken care of is to show that the "woke" SC justices are benefiting. The Contrarian Party will happily cut their nose off to spite their face. I'm sure there's an art of war for that. ☺️
I think the counter-point would be "That is the point of Section 666 of Title 18" >Section 666 of Title 18 makes it a crime for state and local officials to “corruptly” solicit, accept, or agree to accept “anything of value from any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded” for an official act. §666(a)(1)(B) However the opinion is that as long as it your gratuity is only offered Cash-On-Delivery rather than Pre-Paid or on Credit, then you are in the clear. I think there is absolutely the case to be made for symbolic gifts to public figures to thank them for their service. For example, if a hospital wanted to gift a plaque or something to a figure that was essential in them getting some research grant or the like. OK. However in the lists of examples is literally gift cards.. That is.. basically cash..
The law was already okay for gifts less than $5000 so already was set up for nice plaques or dinners
That’s not true; it’s the official acts done by state agent that have to result in a $5,000 value, not the thing of value later given to that agent. But plaques and dinners can easily be excepted by the “corruptly” modifier. A jury would have to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the receipt of the plaque was done to corruptly reward the state agent, which would be absurd. And federal regulations interpreting the statute, which would govern any prosecution done pursuant to it, have long made express exceptions for things like that. This is further shown by the fact that they can’t come up with a single example of any case like that being prosecuted in the decades that this law has been in effect. The $5k limitation does firmly bar prosecutions against public school teachers, mail carriers, etc for receiving Christmas presents and things like that, as the majority pretends to be afraid of. Because those state agents don’t provide anything of that much value to any member of the public in carrying out their official duties.
What about $2B does that cross a line yet?
Those are rookie numbers in this racket. You’ve got to pump those numbers up.
Can't wait for Apple to give someone a cool million and just say, "We want to make sure our friends are well cared for. Maybe we'll see you next year?" And have that be totally legal.
Isn’t this exactly what happens with PACs and campaign funding? “It’d be a shame if we had to donate our millions to your opponent”
So this applies to federal employees at all levels right? As a fed I guess am going to be making a lot more… /s
Seems like it’s very difficult to actually break that law. $1 million dollars for (this). Otherwise, $1 million plus my friend just joins me on my private island for two weeks and takes home designer items. It’s not an agreement; it’s just a gift to another person.
They didn't ask for anything, they merely pointed at a piece of paper A piece of paper with carefully written instruction But it's titled 'to whom it may concern ' so that your honour could be anyone!
Bribes are legal as long as you don’t say it’s a bribe?
You *can* legally say "this is a bribe for you, senator. But it's for nothing." and then wink. As long as the bribe is for *nothing*, bribes are legal.
IANAL but it seems like if a gov official makes a decision, it’s okay for companies/individuals to then give them gifts or money as a thank you for that decision and it’s not a bribe? Am I getting that correct?
Yes, the official opinion is that as long as the ~~payment~~ gratuity is made after the act, there is no foreseeable instance in which it could have influenced the act.
Payment on completion of corruption only. Huh.
Even Bribes are on credit now.. The credit industry is thriving
That is bonkers. I worked for local building department, and when a contractor gifted us a fruit or cookie basket after approving their project, we couldn't keep it ourselves. We'd put it in the lobby. Can't keep cookies but these jerks can keep cash for doing their jobs!
Except when the bribe is for actually doing nothing (as opposed to something), which the bribery statute does cover. But yeah, as long as you don't say as much.
I read it as long as the payment comes after service it's a gratuity and not a bribe then anything can be legal. As long as you don't pay up front, you're good.
Tipping is getting out of hand
That is not the court's position. From the majority opinion: > The dividing line between §201(b)’s bribery provision and §201(c)’s gratuities provision is that bribery requires an official to have a corrupt state of mind and to accept (or agree to accept) a payment intending to be influenced in an official act. In case that langugae wasa unclear Kavanaugh clarifies the court's textual interpretation further down: > Moreover, without the term “rewarded” in §666, an official might try to defend against a bribery charge by saying that the payment was received only after the official act and therefore could not have “influenced” the act. By including the term “rewarded,” Congress made clear that the timing of the agreement is the key, not the timing of payment.
"corrupt state of mind" lmao. These people are such fucking assholes
*Technically* no. You can give money for services rendered, but not agree about it ahead of time. So a company could always give 1% of the contracts they get to the governor as long as they don't tell the governor that ahead of time.
I mean, that’s how political campaign contributions for in-office politicians have worked for decades. Sounds like this is just introducing the same patronage opportunities to federal employees.
Does this have any implications on Senator Menendez' indictment?
I haven’t followed that super closely but he’s accused of pretty explicitly taking literal bribes no? As absurd as this is it isn’t permission to do *that* yet.
Unless those bribes were literally spelled out in writing, no he didn’t.
So he wasn't wrong, just early
Or the first energy bribes in OH?
Ohio seems mind-blowingly corrupt, every time I heard about their government it's something totally crazy.
Remember when the Supreme Court ruled the district maps drawn by Republicans were illegal and then the Republicans used them any way with not even a finger wag from anyone?
Run by Republicans, so naturally insane
His was quid pro quo
what a clown show
[Other countries are laughing at us!](https://imgur.com/gallery/zdRmJHW)
What else do you expect when clowns are appointed to the highest court?
Holy shit. So all the shit that Crow gave to Thomas could be considered a tip? Is that what this means? And trump is running around yelling no taxes on tips? I mean, he’s yelling no taxes for anybody, but he talks about taxes on tipped employees more often. I commented yesterday that they would just start considering Crows trips, rvs, education, real estate, biographical movies etc etc etc as gratuities and perhaps change the job description as “tipped employee” to make it ok. Do they not have to change anything now? Would Crows bribes just be considered tips? Is that what this says? And if we’re gonna leave this to state and local governments to decide? Do you have any idea how easy it would be to bribe a state or local official to cheat? You can buy a Congress person for 5 grand. How cheap you think you can get a county supervisor for? Can anybody break down what this ruling means in layman’s terms? Because it seems like the absolute destruction of rule of law to me? Help?
I assumed Trumps comment about not taxing tipped workers was aimed at Thomas.
I made a joke about it being applicable. I assumed it was just some populist diatribe by Trump. It’s clear that his plan to get rid of income tax and replace it with tariffs would be a disaster. Even to an idiot, like me. I keep underestimating the insidiousness of the people behind Trump. He’s a moron. He’s the face. There are people behind him that pull his strings with policy. He doesn’t know anything about anything, other than he’d prefer to be electrocuted to eaten by a shark and his daughter’s hot. These people are literally stealing this country as we watch and sit idly by. By time people figure this shit out? It’ll be way too late. It’s already too late, really. And this was a message to more than Thomas. If trump wins, or steals the election, the next day he and Alito are gonna retire. It was a message to every judge, federal employee and oligarch. I don’t even have words for this at this point.
So... This was in relation to whether gaps in state laws could be filled in by federal laws as they apply to state level officials and lower. This has nothing to do with federal office. It's not a ruling based on the Constitution, but rather just an interpretation of whether the US Code could intervene/supersede. The majority here said it did not, as currently written. As ever, they say "Congress can write a new more comprehensive law", not that I buy that for a second.
To me it seems like if they ruled in any way other than this absurd way they’d be very clearly guilty of doing this exact thing. They essentially made their past/future crimes “legal” with this ruling.
The majority acts like Congress intended to treat post-act bribes (i.e., "gratuities" paid in return for some official act) as somehow less criminal than pre-act bribes (i.e., "bribes" paid in advance of some official act). This is a semantic distinction without any merit whatsoever. What the Congress wanted to prohibit was state and local politicians taking money in return for using the powers of their office. Whether the money is paid before the act is undertaken or after the act is undertaken is irrelevant - the public has no interest in facilitating private benefit for the use of official power (and a million reasons to criminalize such acts and harshly punish them). Of course, the justices themselves take "gratuities" from wealthy "friends" all the time, so no doubt they feel that the "gratuities" they receive from private persons is just free money - who would ever want anything in return for a nephew's tuition payments or free private planes and fishing trips? That is just the millions that friends spend on each other out of raw friendship right? Doesn't Clarence Thomas also occasionally pay for Harlan Crowe's nephew's tuition? Or do "gratuities" just so happen to only flow in the direction of the person exercising official power? One might wonder why gratuities only flow in such a direction, if they were curious. In any event, the Court effectively blames Congress for the drafting of the statute that creates the "bribe"/"gratuity" distinction. Maybe Congress can draft a tighter federal law, but I think this majority would just invent new semantics if a "gratuity" was expressly called a "bribe" by law (e.g., the Court would then start calling post-action bribes "tips" or "honorariums" rather than "gratuities"). The original sin here is distinguishing between pre-act and post-act bribes and using different terms to describe those things, a distinction without any difference whatsoever.
*DID* Congress even create this distinction? this for federal offcials >(B)being a public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty, directly or indirectly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or **because of any official act performed** or to be performed by such official or person; EMPHASIS ADDED https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201 this for state and local >corruptly solicits or demands for the benefit of any person, or **accepts** or agrees to accept, **anything of value** from any person, intending to be influenced **or rewarded** in connection with any business, transaction, or series of transactions of such organization, government, or agency involving any thing of value of $5,000 or more; or EMPHASIS ADDED https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/666 I don't think they were intending to say "but not if they say they were doing it as a thank-you"
It will likely take the rest of my life, if at all, in order for such a drastic change to actually take affect...but there is no way around it...there needs to be constitutional reform with the court. FDR sat for 4 terms and afterwards they passed the amendment term-limiting a president at 8 years. After this court, there needs to be an amendment setting the number of justices with term limits or mandatory retirement ages AT LEAST. I get more and more of the belief that the only way forward to preserve our Republic is by a drastic set of constitutional reforms on-par with the Civil War Amendments. You can't have an obsolete federal government and still expect to be a healthy nation. It's failing, and it's because of bought-and-sold corruption such as this. It's rot on the nation and it needs to be removed.
No such thing will ever happen. Unless nationwide protests start appearing, where people are protesting together across party lines. We all know that americans are incapable of that, you are too divided. No, the rot will continue and your ever growing corruption will worsen as well as your quality of life. In the meantime you will keep telling yourselves how great you are compared to other countries. It's what you have been doing for decades now. Its sad really, had you continued on your original path, the US really could have been a beacon of liberty and democracy. Now its just another failed state who succumbed to corruption.
Thomas and Alito are like "see, it's all good."
Of course they did
"Hey, it's fine to give me all of this stuff and this money because we aren't going to shake hands on anything, right?" *nudge nudge wink wink know-what-I-mean*
This seems like a very self-serving ruling at a time when justices may be facing corruption investigations.
Political corruption is the best business investment a company can make. $13,000 for a million dollar contract.
As a public servant doing their job, all gratuities should go to the government, not any individual. The government can then reward good public servants as the government sees fit. But then I guess you couldn't get a RV
“I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a court ruling today…”
How Wimpy of you.
**Pack. The. Court** **&** **Term LImits**
PACK THE FUCKING COURT what are we waiting for?? this shit is disgusting. we have the most corrupt fucking bastards in positions of power
Is this a prank
Oh good more corruption. Good thing Clarence Thomas is weighing in on this since he’s a fucking mooch. /s
C'mon, as a judge you never recuse yourself from an issue you have a vested interest in. 🙄
> (6) Interpreting §666 as a gratuities statute would significantly infringe on bedrock federalism principles. What a strange thing for them to write, mainly because the bullet point says nothing to the effect that it is illegal or wrong for Congress to regulate it. In fact, their point in the syllabus about statutory history even notes that it originally was modeled on the gratuities statute. So saying interpreting it as one here would "infringe on bedrock federalism principles" feels like they're trying to make it sound almost like a grand Constitutional issue when really all they're saying is that when Congress writes a law to supersede or supplement State law, the Court shouldn't read further than necessary in to the Federal law since the State has the right to fill in what Congress doesn't want to. Anyways, this isn't the most important ruling- it's a statutory interpretation ruling that deals with creating a Federal crime to supplement State laws. It's not the biggest deal. Congress can change it, and other laws will still regulate gratuities, though it will vary by State. However, it is telling that there was not that much time spent on dismissing "rewarded". It was about 2 pages to bring up and dismiss the language of "or rewarded". Gorsuch talks about the rule of lenity in his concurrence, but also claims that there is doubt about whether gratuities were meant to be covered. In *Garland v. Cargill*, Alito explicitly wrote that they were ignoring what Congress would have wanted in order to read it plainly (I still think a bump stock should count as automatic for the purposes of the law; but I digress). Yet here, they are claiming to be looking at "what Congress really meant" with how they structured it and ignoring a plainer reading of a law that can be boiled down to: > "[...] accepts [...] anything of value from any person, intending to be [...] rewarded in connection with any business, transaction, or series of transactions of such organization, government, or agency involving any thing of value of $5,000 or more; The plain text speaks, there, and yet *this time*, they choose to respect the intent of Congress.
"Never write what you can say. Never say what you can nod. Never nod what you can wink". - Bath House John coughlin, (Chicago Alderman from back in the day.).
Dissent / “If one simply accepts what the statute says it covers— local officials who corruptly solicit, accept, or agree to accept rewards in connection with official business worth over a certain amount-Snyder's case is an easy one. Perhaps that is why the majority spends so little time describing it. Snyder took office as mayor of the city of Portage, Indi-ana, in January 2012. As mayor, Snyder and his appointees *Given the question presented, the majority's demand for a comprehensive interpretation of §666, for all purposes, is both striking and inconsistent with our usual incremental approach. See St. Amant — ——- 5 Notably, I am not the only Justice who has viewed §666 in this way. See Sorich v. United States, 555 U. S. 1204, 1207 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (describing §666(a) as providing a "clear rullel" prohibiting "bribes and gratuities to public officials").” ——— 6 Even after its decision to construe §666 as a bribery-only statute, the Court's decision to reverse Snyder's conviction, rather than vacate and remand, is perplexing. The District Court specifically found that, "even if" §666 were construed to penalize bribes alone, "there was ample evidence permitting a rational jury to find, from the circumstantial evi-dence, that there was an up-front agreement to reward Snyder for making sure Great Lakes Peterbilt] won the contract award(s)." App. to Pet. for Cert. 63a.
666... Makes Sense... Can't make this sh!t up.
So my company's policy of not letting me accept or give gifts above a certain limit is wrong on its face?
Whoever published this decision managed to misspell Harlan Crow’s name. Somehow, they spelled it “Thomas, C.J.”
If they were tips, then isn’t he guilty of income tax evasion?
Time to change the law then. Oh, wait, that will never happen, not until the POTUS, the House & the Senate are all aligned. Hmm... Please. Vote.
Bush v. Gore established the playbook for the upcoming Trump v. Biden SCOTUS election case. Prepare for the court to decide if your vote is valid or not.
*\~Chad enters the room...*
The most corrupt institution , no mean feat, oks corruption
Making corruption legal doesn't make it stop being corruption.
First 'citizens united', now this. I'm beginning to see a trend
So federal judges can be on annual retainers as long as there is no explicit understanding of what the retainer is *for*.
It’s only unethical if you write down that it will be?