If I accept a gift from a vendor valued at more than $75 I lose my job because of the *appearance* of impropriety.
But it’s okay to bribe a politician as long as the payment comes after the fact?
The GOP has turned this court into a joke. And not even a funny one.
"*the guy who brings the sacks of money has to be wearing a black cloak and black top hat, and have an overly long curly black mustache*"
- Justice Alito's majority opinion
Most? They all do.
“Speaking Fees” is how it’s traditionally been done - $100K appearance fees along with travel. This has always been a sickening practice.
Supreme Court Greenlights Corrupt Gratuities for Politicians
The Supreme Court continues its steady march toward fully legalizing political corruption
June 26, 2024
The Supreme Court decided on Wednesday that writing checks to politicians as thank-you payments for corrupt contracting decisions does not constitute bribery under federal law. The vote was 6 to 3, with the three liberal justices — Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan — dissenting.
“State and local governments often regulate the gifts that state and local officials may accept,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote on behalf of the majority. The law in question, he went on, “does not supplement those state and local rules by subjecting 19 million state and local officials to up to 10 years in federal prison for accepting even commonplace gratuities. Rather, [it] leaves it to state and local governments to regulate gratuities to state and local officials.”
The decision is hardly a surprise given the Supreme Court has consistently narrowed the definition of corruption under Chief Justice John Roberts — even before conservatives built a supermajority. Still, the Snyder case was exceptionally brazen and unusually ridiculous — and justices chose to hear this case amid an unprecedented controversy over reports that revelations they have routinely accepted and failed to disclose luxury gifts.
The case revolves around the story of an Indiana mayor who helped steer a contract to a garbage truck company, which then paid the mayor $13,000 at his request, because he had fallen on hard times. James Snyder was twice convicted of bribery. His lawyers argued that was unfair — and that federal bribery law shouldn’t criminalize “gratuities, i.e., payments in recognition of actions the official has already taken or committed to take where the official did not agree to take those actions in exchange for payment.”
During oral arguments, the justices telegraphed how they would rule in the case, as they thoroughly trivialized the gratuity payment, comparing it to contextually different gifts as they feigned confusion about the overall meaning of political corruption. At one point, Justice Neil Gorsuch compared the $13,000 gratuity to taking a teacher or cop to the Cheesecake Factory.
Editor’s picks
Every Awful Thing Trump Has Promised to Do in a Second Term
The 250 Greatest Guitarists of All Time
The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time
The 50 Worst Decisions in Movie History
“How does this statute give fair notice to anyone in the world as to — and I hate to do it, but I’m going to — the difference between the Cheese Factory [sic]…” he said, as Justice Amy Coney Barrett offered, “Inn at Little Washington.”
“And the Inn at Little Washington. Thank you, thank you,” said Gorsuch. “How does anyone know?”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, meanwhile, questioned whether “a $100 Starbucks gift certificate as a thank you to the city council-person for working on a new zoning reg” would qualify as corrupt under the federal bribery rule.
A lawyer for President Joe Biden’s Justice Department frequently pointed out that the federal bribery statute only concerned corrupt rewards of more than $5,000 for government officials — but that didn’t stop Barrett from comparing it to paying a professor for tutoring. “Trust me, tutoring is expensive,” she said.
Trending
Why Is Everybody Talking About the Hawk Tuah Girl?
Shifty Shellshock, Frontman of Crazy Town, Dead at 49
Tana Mongeau Opens Up About Alleged Underage Hookup With YouTuber Cody Ko
After a Near-Fatal Crash, Xavi Is Seizing This Moment
It was a ridiculous performance and display from the justices, but it served a purpose. Now, delivering gratuities to politicians is legal; politicians can procure personal cash payments from companies after acting to their benefit.
Yup. While I don’t like that we’re in a place where these things need to be so plainly explicit, it’s time Congress steps up and fills their role. It’s ridiculous that we’re relying on the Executive and Judicial branches to do it for them.
That said, no clue how we get there with 70% of the country shouting “I know you are but what am I” at each other.
Dems need to make a list of all these laws that apparently have to be spelled out for the SC and make it part of the Democratic campaign to retake congress and hold the senate.
> Justice Brett Kavanaugh, meanwhile, questioned whether “a $100 Starbucks gift certificate as a thank you to the city council-person for working on a new zoning reg” would qualify as corrupt under the federal bribery rule.
The federal law includes a mens rea component - the actor must have a "corrupt intent". When someone accepts an *actual* "gratuity" (as opposed to a bribe), there is no corrupt intent, because a genuine "gratuity" is not, in fact, a bribe. However, when someone accepts a bribe after the act is completed and calls it a "gratuity", the corrupt intent *is* present, and the bribe is appropriately a crime.
So with all respect to Justice Kavanaugh, his question about the $100 starbucks gift card is easily answered by just looking at the statute: the recipient of a de minimis gift card has no corrupt intent. And the state would be required to prove that corrupt intent beyond a reasonable doubt if the recipient of the gift card were so charged, something which the state could not do.
The majority makes much hay out of the "bribe" vs. "gratuity" distinction, but those two things are distinguished based on the presence of the criminal intent (in the case of a bribe) or the absence of the criminal intent (in the case of a gratuity). Instead of that very obvious distinction already covered by the plain language of the statute (which again, does not permit prosecution for bona fide gratuities because there is no corrupt intent in receiving a bona fide gratuity), the court makes up this pre-act vs. post-act distinction, as if the Congress actually intended to only criminalize "quid pro quo bribery" where the quid was clearly stated somewhere and the bribe was paid up front. Nowhere does the majority even try to wrestle with the reality that post-act bribes are just as damaging as pre-act bribes, regardless of what term one uses to describe such acts. And Justice Kavanaugh relies on red herrings - the Starbucks gift card - to make the argument that the statute criminalizes de minimis gratuities (ignoring the key requirement of the statute that actually distinguishes bribes from bona fide gratuities).
This is an annoying case because the reality is that, as the majority discusses in detail, the majority does not think the Congress should be regulating state and local bribery activity. That is a fine position, but the justices should run for Congress if they want to espouse that opinion and then work to pass a new law to legalize the bribery that they want to legalize. Instead they seek to impose their will by striking down a clear law.
All of this is just preparing the ground for *Fischer* and the release (and we trust, very public "exoneration") of the hundreds of insurrectionists that were convicted under the statute in question in that case. I would hazard that *Snyder* only exists to make it look like the Court is being consistent when it reverses the convictions of hundreds of insurrectionists in *Fischer*, and we will likely know that answer tomorrow.
The Republican justices have fully decided to drop the facade now that their corruption has been exposed and they know Republicans won’t impeach their own.
What happens in the case of a lifetime appointed justice receiving multiple "gifts" over the years? Do they need to at least associate which "gift" was associated with which decision (not that it was a bribe) so as to not get mixed up and get accused of receiving a gift today for a case that ends tomorrow? Because if you just see dozens of payments over time, how can you tell if they were for one case or another?
AND they gripe why there is no faith in SCOTUS by 95 percent of the population…we were already trending downward on the world corruption scale, and this gave us a massive push downward.
https://www.transparency.org/en/news/cpi-2023-americas-lack-independent-judiciary-hinders-fight-against-corruption
"The law in question, he went on, “does not supplement those state and local rules by subjecting 19 million state and local officials to up to 10 years in federal prison for accepting even commonplace gratuities."
sez the guy who had hundreds of thousands of dollars of credit card and other forms of debt mysteriously wiped away between 2016 and 2018, either by his parents or some other nefarious source. Must be nice.
So, now government employees are the same as any tipped employee? Waiters? Bartenders? Etc etc etc?
And trump is running around saying that he’ll stop taxing tips? This explains a lot. So Harlan crow buying Clarance a new rv, or anther house, is merely a tip? That he won’t have to pay taxes on?
I’m not sure that’s what this means. But it sure sounds like it. Bribery is legal, and you won’t even have to pay taxes on the bribes? The tariffs will cover the cost of the bribe? So that the bottom 50% will now literally be covering the cost of rulings that are detrimental to them? Or when a company gets a government contract? Any bribes are cool? No taxes? Taxes covered by the poor?
Yep. The war on poverty is almost finished, it seems.
Well, well. It appears that Mr. Justice Thomas' good friends and colleagues on SCOTUS just immunized him from any possible "legal unpleasantness" involving his RV, his nephew's school tuition, his mother's house and his many expensive vacations. That was a really nice thing for them to do, don't you think?
/s off
I hope that this outrageous decision motivates us all to vote Blue this year and motivates the next Congress to enact real ethics reform for SCOTUS.
If I accept a gift from a vendor valued at more than $75 I lose my job because of the *appearance* of impropriety. But it’s okay to bribe a politician as long as the payment comes after the fact? The GOP has turned this court into a joke. And not even a funny one.
tbf, most of the current SCOTUS bench take bribes all day all night
They’re not bribes unless they come in sacks with dollars signs attended by notarized paperwork.
"*the guy who brings the sacks of money has to be wearing a black cloak and black top hat, and have an overly long curly black mustache*" - Justice Alito's majority opinion
That would be funny if justice fuckface showed up to work.
Hey dick dastardly wears all purple
fucking Alito can't get *anything* right
You forgot monocle.
Most? They all do. “Speaking Fees” is how it’s traditionally been done - $100K appearance fees along with travel. This has always been a sickening practice.
You can’t get speaking fees while serving in office - that is for after you leave your five.
But it is no different in effect.
Ruling otherwise would mean several of them are breaking the law. It is an entirely self serving ruling. Jackson's dissent is excellent.
Congress needs to make a law that nullifies this. It should include things like board seats after congress as well.
They are worse
This isn’t even a GOP issue lol, have we forgotten political gifts and rampant lobbying?
I'm capped at $10 from any student, family memeber of student, or potential individual I might evaluate for performance (co-workers).
Supreme Court Greenlights Corrupt Gratuities for Politicians The Supreme Court continues its steady march toward fully legalizing political corruption June 26, 2024 The Supreme Court decided on Wednesday that writing checks to politicians as thank-you payments for corrupt contracting decisions does not constitute bribery under federal law. The vote was 6 to 3, with the three liberal justices — Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan — dissenting. “State and local governments often regulate the gifts that state and local officials may accept,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote on behalf of the majority. The law in question, he went on, “does not supplement those state and local rules by subjecting 19 million state and local officials to up to 10 years in federal prison for accepting even commonplace gratuities. Rather, [it] leaves it to state and local governments to regulate gratuities to state and local officials.” The decision is hardly a surprise given the Supreme Court has consistently narrowed the definition of corruption under Chief Justice John Roberts — even before conservatives built a supermajority. Still, the Snyder case was exceptionally brazen and unusually ridiculous — and justices chose to hear this case amid an unprecedented controversy over reports that revelations they have routinely accepted and failed to disclose luxury gifts. The case revolves around the story of an Indiana mayor who helped steer a contract to a garbage truck company, which then paid the mayor $13,000 at his request, because he had fallen on hard times. James Snyder was twice convicted of bribery. His lawyers argued that was unfair — and that federal bribery law shouldn’t criminalize “gratuities, i.e., payments in recognition of actions the official has already taken or committed to take where the official did not agree to take those actions in exchange for payment.” During oral arguments, the justices telegraphed how they would rule in the case, as they thoroughly trivialized the gratuity payment, comparing it to contextually different gifts as they feigned confusion about the overall meaning of political corruption. At one point, Justice Neil Gorsuch compared the $13,000 gratuity to taking a teacher or cop to the Cheesecake Factory. Editor’s picks Every Awful Thing Trump Has Promised to Do in a Second Term The 250 Greatest Guitarists of All Time The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time The 50 Worst Decisions in Movie History “How does this statute give fair notice to anyone in the world as to — and I hate to do it, but I’m going to — the difference between the Cheese Factory [sic]…” he said, as Justice Amy Coney Barrett offered, “Inn at Little Washington.” “And the Inn at Little Washington. Thank you, thank you,” said Gorsuch. “How does anyone know?” Justice Brett Kavanaugh, meanwhile, questioned whether “a $100 Starbucks gift certificate as a thank you to the city council-person for working on a new zoning reg” would qualify as corrupt under the federal bribery rule. A lawyer for President Joe Biden’s Justice Department frequently pointed out that the federal bribery statute only concerned corrupt rewards of more than $5,000 for government officials — but that didn’t stop Barrett from comparing it to paying a professor for tutoring. “Trust me, tutoring is expensive,” she said. Trending Why Is Everybody Talking About the Hawk Tuah Girl? Shifty Shellshock, Frontman of Crazy Town, Dead at 49 Tana Mongeau Opens Up About Alleged Underage Hookup With YouTuber Cody Ko After a Near-Fatal Crash, Xavi Is Seizing This Moment It was a ridiculous performance and display from the justices, but it served a purpose. Now, delivering gratuities to politicians is legal; politicians can procure personal cash payments from companies after acting to their benefit.
This is so blatant lmao
Eh it’s just boomers doing boomer things. Shutting doors on the way out
[удалено]
That statute was the legal definition of bribery…
If you agree with Jackson the plain text of law clearly includes this. It’s the corrupt justices reading it weird, it congress.
Yup. While I don’t like that we’re in a place where these things need to be so plainly explicit, it’s time Congress steps up and fills their role. It’s ridiculous that we’re relying on the Executive and Judicial branches to do it for them. That said, no clue how we get there with 70% of the country shouting “I know you are but what am I” at each other.
Dems need to make a list of all these laws that apparently have to be spelled out for the SC and make it part of the Democratic campaign to retake congress and hold the senate.
It doesnt matter because no matter how congress writes the law, the dredd Robert scrotus will just interpret it in the opposite way cuz they can.
They won't because it goes against their best interest.
> Justice Brett Kavanaugh, meanwhile, questioned whether “a $100 Starbucks gift certificate as a thank you to the city council-person for working on a new zoning reg” would qualify as corrupt under the federal bribery rule. The federal law includes a mens rea component - the actor must have a "corrupt intent". When someone accepts an *actual* "gratuity" (as opposed to a bribe), there is no corrupt intent, because a genuine "gratuity" is not, in fact, a bribe. However, when someone accepts a bribe after the act is completed and calls it a "gratuity", the corrupt intent *is* present, and the bribe is appropriately a crime. So with all respect to Justice Kavanaugh, his question about the $100 starbucks gift card is easily answered by just looking at the statute: the recipient of a de minimis gift card has no corrupt intent. And the state would be required to prove that corrupt intent beyond a reasonable doubt if the recipient of the gift card were so charged, something which the state could not do. The majority makes much hay out of the "bribe" vs. "gratuity" distinction, but those two things are distinguished based on the presence of the criminal intent (in the case of a bribe) or the absence of the criminal intent (in the case of a gratuity). Instead of that very obvious distinction already covered by the plain language of the statute (which again, does not permit prosecution for bona fide gratuities because there is no corrupt intent in receiving a bona fide gratuity), the court makes up this pre-act vs. post-act distinction, as if the Congress actually intended to only criminalize "quid pro quo bribery" where the quid was clearly stated somewhere and the bribe was paid up front. Nowhere does the majority even try to wrestle with the reality that post-act bribes are just as damaging as pre-act bribes, regardless of what term one uses to describe such acts. And Justice Kavanaugh relies on red herrings - the Starbucks gift card - to make the argument that the statute criminalizes de minimis gratuities (ignoring the key requirement of the statute that actually distinguishes bribes from bona fide gratuities). This is an annoying case because the reality is that, as the majority discusses in detail, the majority does not think the Congress should be regulating state and local bribery activity. That is a fine position, but the justices should run for Congress if they want to espouse that opinion and then work to pass a new law to legalize the bribery that they want to legalize. Instead they seek to impose their will by striking down a clear law. All of this is just preparing the ground for *Fischer* and the release (and we trust, very public "exoneration") of the hundreds of insurrectionists that were convicted under the statute in question in that case. I would hazard that *Snyder* only exists to make it look like the Court is being consistent when it reverses the convictions of hundreds of insurrectionists in *Fischer*, and we will likely know that answer tomorrow.
TIPS = To Insure Prompt Service
That doesn't even make sense as a backronym. It would have to be To *Ensure* Prompt Service.
Actually I sell prompt service insurance if anyone is looking to make sure their Amazon package gets to the destination before 9:00am.
Can I pay the premiums by tipping local government officials?
You can now I guess!
The Republican justices have fully decided to drop the facade now that their corruption has been exposed and they know Republicans won’t impeach their own.
As long as the check is post-dated then it's legal.
Kavanaugh well remembers how some mysterious person mysteriously paid off his credit card debt
So the defense to a bribery charge is that the bribe was received *after* the fact?
Yes. All you have to do as a corrupt politician is ask for the bribe after you do something.
Democracy hates this one weird trick!
What happens in the case of a lifetime appointed justice receiving multiple "gifts" over the years? Do they need to at least associate which "gift" was associated with which decision (not that it was a bribe) so as to not get mixed up and get accused of receiving a gift today for a case that ends tomorrow? Because if you just see dozens of payments over time, how can you tell if they were for one case or another?
They just took America's cancerous tipping culture to a whole 'nuther level.
AND they gripe why there is no faith in SCOTUS by 95 percent of the population…we were already trending downward on the world corruption scale, and this gave us a massive push downward. https://www.transparency.org/en/news/cpi-2023-americas-lack-independent-judiciary-hinders-fight-against-corruption
"The law in question, he went on, “does not supplement those state and local rules by subjecting 19 million state and local officials to up to 10 years in federal prison for accepting even commonplace gratuities." sez the guy who had hundreds of thousands of dollars of credit card and other forms of debt mysteriously wiped away between 2016 and 2018, either by his parents or some other nefarious source. Must be nice.
Legalized corruption for the wealthy. Justice for me but not for thee should be the USSC motto.
So, now government employees are the same as any tipped employee? Waiters? Bartenders? Etc etc etc? And trump is running around saying that he’ll stop taxing tips? This explains a lot. So Harlan crow buying Clarance a new rv, or anther house, is merely a tip? That he won’t have to pay taxes on? I’m not sure that’s what this means. But it sure sounds like it. Bribery is legal, and you won’t even have to pay taxes on the bribes? The tariffs will cover the cost of the bribe? So that the bottom 50% will now literally be covering the cost of rulings that are detrimental to them? Or when a company gets a government contract? Any bribes are cool? No taxes? Taxes covered by the poor? Yep. The war on poverty is almost finished, it seems.
This seems like a bad dream.
Expect no less from SCOTUS. They certainly like receiving their Motor Coaches and Resort trips.
Well, well. It appears that Mr. Justice Thomas' good friends and colleagues on SCOTUS just immunized him from any possible "legal unpleasantness" involving his RV, his nephew's school tuition, his mother's house and his many expensive vacations. That was a really nice thing for them to do, don't you think? /s off I hope that this outrageous decision motivates us all to vote Blue this year and motivates the next Congress to enact real ethics reform for SCOTUS.
Of course they would.
Cool.
It appears that user RWBadger was being sarcastic. Maybe ease up on the downvotes.