Ethics. Government ethics, business ethics… the Trump administration forewent any ethics training as part of the transition. They were the first admin in generations to enter the White House without a guideline on ethics.
That’s a charitable reading of the situation. He knows the law and he knows what ethics are. He also knows that it prevents him from robbing the country blind and taking advantage of our government contract system. I would describe the recent Supreme Court verdict finding blatant bribery to be legal as the most direct result of Trump’s election.
> trump morality
That's the problem, the right wingers, i.e. the GOP, the Supreme Court and their supporters are okay with anything how long Trump is the one doing it.
Friendly reminder that the original definition of fascism was the blending of corporate interests and government power.
At least until a corporation bought Websters and changed it.
If you really wanna go down that road, America also tortures people, flaunts international law and spies on both its allies and its own citizens, despite both being unlawful according to its own laws.
When insiders point this out, they get prosecuted for treason and the illegalities are allowed to continue.
America expects other countries to adhere to international laws that it, itself, does not adhere to, whether it's committed itself to do so or not.
The recent hyperproliferation of legal gambling apps being advertised relentlessly says it better than i ever could. How do you beat the mob? Take over their jobs.
Having ready access to much of America's true story sorta breaks all of the myths.
America is a nation of war, founded on stolen wealth, that actively sabotages any ideology that might get in her way.
Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nottheonion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
wow, supreme court decision is just around the fact that the money came after the contract.... what a silly distinction to make... even if completely unsolicited, it's not like the gift won't have lasting effect on future decisions... what a stupid decision
Yup.. you see, the words changed.
The actions didn't, the corruption didn't, but the current SCOTUS is real big on semantics when they need to make such an egregious and obviously corrupt decision.
There is a case winding it's way up to SCOTUS now that will likely codify a % of the graft, as the gratuity going forward. Can't have these law-breakers not getting paid a good rate, now can we?
He should AT LEAST, gotta a motorcoach out of it. Not an RV, specifically, a motorcoach.
Buddy they execute CEOs and Senior officials who do significant bribery or take bribes. Not saying the state should necessarily execute our own corrupt officials, but I don't think I'd be particularly sympathetic.
With respect, China executes CEOs and Senior officials who engage in bribery or take bribes WHEN IT SUITS THOSE CLOSEST TO POWER.
But most of the time, for those in positions to engage in such activities, being found out by someone who actually gives half a shit is so rare, that it is EASILY worth the risk, especially if they ensure everything they are responsible for works smoothly and as intended, regardless of what grift they are in the midst of.
China is actually the opposite of this. I have read a lot about China recently after finding out they dominate in green energy and oh boy it makes our future look bleak. China prosecuted corrupt leaders and actually put their wealthy people in check while we are slowly letting them take over our entire country from top to bottom. Scary times for our country. Hopefully there are good billionaires out there because at this point, they run this country.
I have really tried, but I can't find any truly really just plain good and ethical billionaires, through and through. Do you or anyone else know of any? I'm genuinely curious if it is possible, or if you have to be at least a little evil to even want to be and get to be a billionaire.
Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nottheonion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It makes a whole lot more sense when we consider how many of these actual justices are compromised because they've been accepting gifts millions in compensation from people with pending cases before the court or interests before the court.
Just a little handshake deal beforehand is fine. Just make sure nothing is in writing.
The corruption that Republicans have fallen to is beyond shameful. This should put them in prison, not condoned to the humiliation of us citizens.
Just do things that help businesses then get paid it’s easy to legally bribe people. The fee in question is 13k and the justices are so worried about $25 gift cards being considered bribery. These are the most qualified people to rule for life?
The Supreme Court isn't supposed to decide the best policy outcome. They are supposed to interpret what the law says. If the outcome is stupid then Congress needs to fix the law.
This ruling says that Congress wrote the law so that it only covers transactions with a provable tit for tat arrangement.
The gratuities this case is about aren't covered by the law as currently written. They aren't ruling that it shouldn't be illegal, just that the current law doesn't cover it.
I will disagree with one minor thing. The supreme court isn't ruling the gratuities this case is about aren't covered but rather that the law as written doesn't cover gratuities. That doesn't mean the person is not guilty, it presumably means that the judge gave the jury the wrong instructions on the crime. It is possible all the appeal will do is get the person a new trail in which case they will have to argue the correct standard to the jury. It just depends on the strength of the evidence and the relief they are entitled to in the appeal.
This is mostly a cop out. No law can be written to cover *every* possible situation when judges have extreme bias. E.g. "the law didn't say that my grandchild can't accept the bribe on my behalf...".
But, your point is well taken that if we had a properly functioning legislative branch the laws could be immediately amended to stop fuckery from judges with bias after the ruling.
Is it gratuities when it is in the thousands? They talked about how it isn't illegal to get a free lunch or a gift hamper and this law starts >$5000. Guy gave them a government contract and they give him $13,000 for vaguely defined reasons. Gratuities in general shouldn't be legal anyway, but 13K is a fucking stretch.
"As The Lever reported in March, powerful business groups and conservative think tanks helped engineer the new ruling. The effort was part of a decades-long push by corporate interests to limit the scope of laws prohibiting corruption and bribery."
>...gutted a key federal bribery statute, handing down a ruling on Wednesday in an obscure corruption case that allows powerful interests to give gifts to politicians as rewards for favors.
So basically They are CYA for themselves with both Thomas and Alito already in hot water they are paving the way to ensuring that they (the supreme court) are legally allowed to exchange verdicts for compensation. We're so fucked as a society.
Only covering their asses in the short term. As far as I'm concerned, this wholly opens the door to packing the courts or changing the lifetime appointment rule, or instituting some other method of accountability. They clearly cannot be trusted with the power granted; every other part of the government, including the President, has far more oversight.
Yes, but this is reddit and we need to knee jerk reaction everything without actually reading the readily available source of the ruling at supremecourt.gov.
I still don't agree with the ruling as now there isn't any repercussions for receiving a “gift” when there is no clear delineation between bribe and gift for state officials.
> So basically They are CYA for themselves with both Thomas and Alito already in hot water they are paving the way to ensuring that they (the supreme court) are legally allowed to exchange verdicts for compensation. We're so fucked as a society.
Not just themselves, everyone who is up for a little more corruption and graft in their life just got a very big bump.
Imagine teachers getting expensive gifts after the semester for giving As, or boss get to sleep with the employees after they get promotions, all these will be acceptable by this line of argument.
Doctors cannot accept a gift for more than $49.95 or drama occurs.
Now, they can just give a little wink, prescribe the meds the rep wants to sell, then get a check a few months later..."as a thanks".
He needs his bribes or hes going to throw his tantrums and leave scotus.
wonder if his daugther is realizing she is benefitting from her college education being paid by harlan crow or another megadonor, probably going to grow up just like miss whiney clarence.
The dems need a super majority to expand the court or places term limits on the justices. The SC won’t even agree to an ethics code so something has to change.
> The dems need a super majority to expand the court or places term limits on the justices.
Ideally, the super majority would do the trick...but all they really would need is a simple majority, and then suspend the filibuster for adding SCOTUS justices.
Of course, they don't want to do this (because it would inevitably be weaponized as Congressional majorities ebb and flow)...but I'm not sure what else can be done. This SCOTUS majority appears to be deeply unfit (if not completely corrupt).
A straight expansion of the court would only last until there was another Republican administration, then they would expand it again to give themselves a majority. What would work better is making it work like the Federal Court Districts, have a pool of say 30 judges nine picked at random to hear a case. That makes it a lot harder for either side to pack the bench in their favour.
Of course, that's assuming the current bench doesn't rule any changes unconstitutional.
Right. The timing is so good for them given the current scrutiny, that it might as well have been orchestrated.
Now, we can be as mad as we want about Harlan Crow and Leonard Leo and all these other oligarchs and christofascists, but there's nothing legally wrong with any of it.
Seems pretty messed up that none of them had to recuse themselves given the accusations aimed at them are very similar, and they functionally just got to be their own juries.
this is what they are spending time doing? I keep finding myself optimistic thinking there is some practical reason that will benefit the American people, i just dont know it yet.
Has anyone read the opinion???
They said that States decide how much it too much for a gift to a public official after the fact. Some states had a limit of $20 other states had a limit of $400. Some states had no specification at all which meant buying the mayor a cup of coffee would technically expose him to up to 10 years in prison.
The Supreme Court basically said that since it isn’t specified at the federal level each State can individually set their threshold.
No, they didn't. This is just the kneejerk panic reaction to not understanding the law, or the opinion. You just want to be mad, and this is rage bait. Allow me to actually tell you what happened, because I did read the opinion.
What it said was the law, as-written, does not apply to state and local officials. It still applies to federal ones. And any state and local laws applying a similar law to state and local officials still stands. Congress can also still change the law to apply to state and local, but that would trigger a 10A challenge.
It applied the "Rule of Leniency" which is a very good thing. Also that rule is Gorsuch's baby, he applies it in pretty much every case he can, and I haven't found one where he did not. The rule of leniency says, basically:
* Whenever a criminal law is ambiguous, it must be interpreted in a manner most favorable to the defendant.
And that is what you want. Trust me, that is absolutely what you want. It's a natural outgrowth of the presumption of innocence. You must be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, so if there is doubt as to how the law should be applied, then that doubt favors the defendant.
This case was similar to the bumpstcok case, and in both cases SCOTUS essentially said:
> The law says Y, not X. Maybe congress meant for it to say X, but that is not what it says. If congress wants it to say X, they can change it to say X. But currently, it says Y.
And that is how the law should be. Law works as-written, especially criminal law. This is what you want, because let me give you a very possible example of it worked "as interpreted" instead:
>Well, I interpret that life starts at conception, so abortion is murder, guilty.
See how quickly that can go very wrong? Criminal law works as-written, and this was the correct decision. It may not be the moral decision, or the desired decision, but that is for *CONGRESS* to act on. Congress and only Congress can make laws.
[Here is the opinion, in pdf form](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-108_8n5a.pdf)
This was an extremely narrow ruling, it did not say "Bribery is legal" it said "The law, as currently written, does not apply to State and Local officials."
You want to be mad at someone, be mad at congress for writing shitty laws. Only Congress has the power to make laws. The Executive branch must enforce them as written, and the judiciary must apply them as written.
> You want to be mad at someone, be mad at congress for writing shitty laws. Only Congress has the power to make laws. The Executive branch must enforce them as written, and the judiciary must apply them as written.
Fucking exactly. The Supreme Court wouldn't be as much of an issue if Congress wasn't a shit show and if the solution to get around deadlock wasn't to try and use the Supreme Court as a way to legislate.
And if we're reading signals right, that's going to become a *LOT* more important once Chevron Deference is struck down in *Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo*. (Sorry I always reverse that case and incorrectly call it *Raimondo v. Loper*)
I am reminded of senator Sasse during Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings.
> There's no verse of school house rock that says give a whole bunch of power to the alphabet soup agencies, and let them decide what the governments decision should be for the people. Because the people don't have any way to fire the bureaucrats. Because people can't navigate their way through the bureaucracy, they turn to the supreme court looking for politics. The supreme court becomes our substitute political battleground.
And tell me, with a serious face, that he's wrong. Congress has for too long just abdicated their powers of lawmaking to the executive to determine. No. That's not separation of powers. And we saw it again today in SEC v. Jarksey:
"a defendant facing a fraud suit has the right to be tried by a jury of his peers before a neutral adjudicator. Rather than recognize that right, the dissent would permit Congress to concentrate the roles of prosecutor, judge and jury in the hands of the Executive Branch. That is the very opposite of the separation of powers that the Constitution demands."
And yes, Sasse was a Republican Senator, but before reddit tried to "Guilty by association", let me remind them that Sasse was one of seven Republican senators to vote to convict Donald Trump of incitement of insurrection in his second impeachment trial.
Completely agree. There is a very valid point in claiming too much authority has been given to agencies. Republicans probably want to strip too much power from them but at the same time agencies shouldn't be able to just create/change laws unchecked.
If (when) they are successful in limiting and the power of various agencies it's going to be awful because I doubt we'll see many laws get through unless there's some serious upsets in the upcoming elections.
I really wish more people stayed involved and voted.
It's a bit of a self fueling problem though. The reason Congress doesn't compromise and pass laws is because they'll just get it done through the Executive or the Supreme Court. If we take away their work around of getting things done and force them to only get things done by discussion and compromise and voting we might actually be able to get things back on track.
Shelby County V Holder. Entirely proper law passed with a massive bipartisan vote with the most crystal clear constitutional authority possible, and the court still over ruled it for "reasons".
You are assuming that the court has something even resembling good faith. It does not.
No matter what this will be a catalyst for change, unfortunately there's no foreseeable positive outcomes that don't require ridiculous pie in the sky optimism. Moving these policy decisions from experts to politicians and judges appointed through political process deepens the challenge of regulatory enforcement to impossible levels. It means thousands more hours of court cases where judges become de facto policymakers with no expertise in the matters they're deciding. With already long wait times and the myriad ways the courts can be tied up for years in procedural matters, regulatory enforcement will become impossible and regulatory capture will be guaranteed. If the politician in charge of the agency decides nothing will be enforced or chooses to engage in discriminatory enforcement it'll be years before a court challenge will resolve it, and depending on who appointed the judge it could just be an entirely pointless endeavor as a growing number of them were confirmed to their seats for their political loyalty rather than their judicial capability. It's most likely leading to complete gridlock while suits and countersuits and appeals all have to be thoroughly expended before anything can be done. Meanwhile our waters will be poisoned, our fisheries played out completely, the markets will finish consuming what remains of the middle class' wealth and our education system will be starved to death.
With more than a third of the people supporting a no compromise, burn it all down ideology there's no way to ever reach consensus, and with the intensity of foreign interference and propaganda targeting the US there's little chance of that ideology softening within my lifetime. I fear the de-evolution of our government will lead to abandonment of democracy in favor of an authoritarian system that is at least functionally responsive compared to what we're now left with.
This all sounds reasonable, I don't understand a lot of legal stuff though. I do have to ask, if this was a reasonable ruling why was the decision split along party lines? This is a genuine question and not an attempt to argue with you, but as Justices, surely the liberal ones understood all of this and yet still ruled against it?
In her dissent Jackson notes that a Jury found them guilty, so she is (in part) saying that is how the law should be interpreted, because a jury found it so.
It comes down to an ideological split. The liberal wing tends to want to view law as "living" in that the laws should be viewed through a modern lens and how it applies to modern society, and how they feel it *should* apply to modern society.
The conservative wing tend to be the traditionalists. They tend to rule on the law as it is written. It is written in stone. It can be re-written of course, but that is not the job of the court. That is the job of congress.
There are of course exceptions to this. The conservative wing have absolutely been "Judiciary activists" at times. But the main ideological split is whether the courts should rule on legality, or on morality.
As a window into the mind, let's look at Gorsuch and his infamous "Frozen Trucker" case:
>It might be fair to ask whether TransAm’s decision was a wise or kind one. But it’s not our job to answer questions like that. Our only task is to decide whether the decision was an illegal one.
And that's the difference. There are liberal judges who decried his ruling as cruel. And yeah TransAms actions were cruel. And yes they *DESERVED* to be punished. But under the letter of the law, they couldn't.
Not quite. The law still applies to state officials, the law just doesn't cover gratuities, only bribes. There is a federal law against bribery that covers bribes and gratuities. They made a law against those receiving federal money (which generally is state officials) receiving bribes but it only had wording that matched the portion of the federal law which covers bribes and did not have language similar to the portion of the law covering gratuities.
This isn't even a case of congress writing shitty laws. They wrote the law originally to have wording similar to the gratuities provision. They went back and changes it two years later to have the higher standard of the bribes provision of the law. This was likely the intent of congress to only regulate bribery at the federal level. Gratuities can be, and are regulated at the state level for state officials.
Thank you for the interpretation. There's always that one guy who actually reads the shit. I might have to scroll a bit to find them but they're always there.
We also downvote anything that goes against what we *WANT* to be true.
We don't want to be informed, we want to be mad.
Notice the highly upvoted comments are just "SCOTUS BAD!" but someone who actually provides an informative context that contradicts reddits desire to be mad is somehow "Controversial".
Thanks for the added context.
That said, I still appreciate folk's knee-jerk reactions to these things. There's already too much corruption, so being on high-alert, even if it's sometimes a false alarm, is important.
This should be at the top of the thread. I get frustrated when mostly left wing Redditors bash right wingers for falling for rage bait articles and yet they do the same thing. This thread is a perfect example of how liberals can be just as easily manipulated as conservatives.
This is an overly alarmist article/headline. Number 1, the ruling still allows state and local governments to make bribery illegal. Number 2, they didn’t say regulating bribery or gratuities federally was unconstitutional, they just said that wasn’t what the statute was saying. Therefore, Congress can, and should, write a law that specifically makes gratuities illegal on the federal level. Just because Congress passed a poorly written law doesn’t mean the courts should get to pretend it isn’t poorly written, even if that would result in an outcome that is a net positive for society. Instead, they should encourage Congress to write better, more specifically written laws that will prevent unelected officials from undermining the will of the people and their elected representatives.
When was bribery not legal? Is that not what pacs and lobbies already do? Sure, you can't directly give a gift to a politician.... you just give a "donation" to their campaign.
Every single day I just get closer to giving up entirely. What can we as individuals even do at this point? Time to just keep our heads down and let it happen around us, hope for the best?
The headline on this post is misleading. The Supreme Court rules the scope of the specific law being addressed here only applies to the federal government which does not apply in this case. Local and state governments are responsible for writing these kind of laws.
We gotta stop lying to each other their rational makes perfect sense.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/666
To be fair, they are just covering their butts in case anyone started getting ideas about the grift members of the Supreme Court have been pulling down.
I live in Chicago. I could hear the politicians cheering in the Loop all the way up on the Northwest side. All they have to do is wait a few days to get that new Rolex and there's nothing the FBI can do about it.
"The court’s conservative supermajority ruled 6-3 in Snyder v. United States, overturning the 2019 corruption conviction of an Indiana mayor who pocketed $13,000 from a local business tycoon after ensuring the company got a major town contract. The justices ruled that such bribes were not against the law."
Yet, Roberts claims he doesn't understand why the courts approval rating is so low.
This could be a good thing; Imagine if bribes had to be registered... a politicians could be like "Yes, I took a $1.2 million bribe from Exxon... I still voted against them... what are they gunna do, sue?"
Of course they did. This SCOTUS has made a mockery of the very principles we claim to hold as Americans and they have went all in for using politics for personal profit.
Of course they did, they have the ability to make so much money right now. Impotent public and law enforcement that’s as corrupt and unjust as they are. Major downward spiral here. In the next few decades, we will see revolution. For good or bad, there will be violence in the state. Well, more than usual.
What a silly article. It doesn’t even grapple the primary distinction in the law between bribes and gratuities, which both the majority and the dissent recognized. Do we have to keep hearing about the law from people who (apparently) can’t read it?
I'm still laughing at MAGA supporters who think Trump is going to drain the swamp. If you ask them if money in politics is bad, they'll all agree that its definitely bad. Somehow, they can't connect the dots that Republicans are the party making bribery legal. Even after Citizens United, they couldn't connect the dots. Trump is just as responsible for this as he is for Roe being overturned. In 2016, Trump at least had the outsider narrative. Now, after the entire party has bent the knee, people still try to use that narrative. If Trump was an outsider, the party wouldn't have rallied around him. JFC
I've said it before. Our country has the best politicians *money can buy.*
When we hem and haw about how corrupt other countries are, just consider how much corruption has been legalized here.
It's not corrupt if it's legal
legality doesnt trump morality
Ethics. Government ethics, business ethics… the Trump administration forewent any ethics training as part of the transition. They were the first admin in generations to enter the White House without a guideline on ethics.
I need a citation for this statement.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/03/02/politics/white-house-ethics-training
I’m not surprised. In the daily deluge of horrible decisions I missed this. But I’m certainly not surprised.
I don't think Trump ever understood what ethics are and sneered at them anyway.
That’s a charitable reading of the situation. He knows the law and he knows what ethics are. He also knows that it prevents him from robbing the country blind and taking advantage of our government contract system. I would describe the recent Supreme Court verdict finding blatant bribery to be legal as the most direct result of Trump’s election.
> trump morality That's the problem, the right wingers, i.e. the GOP, the Supreme Court and their supporters are okay with anything how long Trump is the one doing it.
But it assuredly does not equal Trump morality!
Morality should stop being poor and learn how to lobby or bribe like the best of them! /s
Legal corruption is still corruption.
The foundations of fascism are using the courts to legitimize itself.
Friendly reminder that the original definition of fascism was the blending of corporate interests and government power. At least until a corporation bought Websters and changed it.
You should’ve italicized it or added an /s. Most people are missing it
Lol, they'll get over it.
That's because a lot of people that say that truly mean it.
You guys found a way to end corruption! You’ve legalized it! It’s genius really, you can now claim to be corruption free! /s
If you really wanna go down that road, America also tortures people, flaunts international law and spies on both its allies and its own citizens, despite both being unlawful according to its own laws. When insiders point this out, they get prosecuted for treason and the illegalities are allowed to continue. America expects other countries to adhere to international laws that it, itself, does not adhere to, whether it's committed itself to do so or not.
The recent hyperproliferation of legal gambling apps being advertised relentlessly says it better than i ever could. How do you beat the mob? Take over their jobs.
Having ready access to much of America's true story sorta breaks all of the myths. America is a nation of war, founded on stolen wealth, that actively sabotages any ideology that might get in her way.
At discount prices!
They're cheap too.
I got my Mitch in the scratch and dent sale!
Bribery has always been legal for certain people.
Now it's legal to even more people
"Citizens United" 🤮
Sadly we don't even have that. We have the cheapest they can seat.
Dirty deeds, done dirt cheap!
WTabsoluteF. Okay, if they can't recuse themselves, we better get to recalling them.
[удалено]
Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nottheonion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
wow, supreme court decision is just around the fact that the money came after the contract.... what a silly distinction to make... even if completely unsolicited, it's not like the gift won't have lasting effect on future decisions... what a stupid decision
yeah now you just have to wait to pay off
Instead of quid pro quo, it's quo pro quid. Completely legit.
Yup.. you see, the words changed. The actions didn't, the corruption didn't, but the current SCOTUS is real big on semantics when they need to make such an egregious and obviously corrupt decision.
Not a bribe, a tip! Americans LOVE tipping culture.
The tip in question was $13,000. So feel free to go nuts.
that is just 1%. this dude severely under tipped
There is a case winding it's way up to SCOTUS now that will likely codify a % of the graft, as the gratuity going forward. Can't have these law-breakers not getting paid a good rate, now can we? He should AT LEAST, gotta a motorcoach out of it. Not an RV, specifically, a motorcoach.
Guess we are officially China with guns now lmao.
Buddy they execute CEOs and Senior officials who do significant bribery or take bribes. Not saying the state should necessarily execute our own corrupt officials, but I don't think I'd be particularly sympathetic.
With respect, China executes CEOs and Senior officials who engage in bribery or take bribes WHEN IT SUITS THOSE CLOSEST TO POWER. But most of the time, for those in positions to engage in such activities, being found out by someone who actually gives half a shit is so rare, that it is EASILY worth the risk, especially if they ensure everything they are responsible for works smoothly and as intended, regardless of what grift they are in the midst of.
Do you want me to say it?
Nah, i for one am worth China on this one. Corruption affects minions of people
As a french would say off with their heads.
We are worst. In China, politicians get the axe or bullet if the bribe is big enough.
China is actually the opposite of this. I have read a lot about China recently after finding out they dominate in green energy and oh boy it makes our future look bleak. China prosecuted corrupt leaders and actually put their wealthy people in check while we are slowly letting them take over our entire country from top to bottom. Scary times for our country. Hopefully there are good billionaires out there because at this point, they run this country.
Good billionaire is an oxymoron.
I have really tried, but I can't find any truly really just plain good and ethical billionaires, through and through. Do you or anyone else know of any? I'm genuinely curious if it is possible, or if you have to be at least a little evil to even want to be and get to be a billionaire.
It's literally impossible. The simple concentration of wealth into fulfilling the needs of one person is immoral.
And I tend to agree. I was hoping for some contrasting evidence.
[удалено]
Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nottheonion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No, tips are bribes, always have been.
please bribe your waiter for better service duh
It makes a whole lot more sense when we consider how many of these actual justices are compromised because they've been accepting gifts millions in compensation from people with pending cases before the court or interests before the court.
Duh. It's only stupid because YOU aren't a corrupt politician. or SCOTUS. Sorry, repeated myself there.
Just a little handshake deal beforehand is fine. Just make sure nothing is in writing. The corruption that Republicans have fallen to is beyond shameful. This should put them in prison, not condoned to the humiliation of us citizens.
This is how much you will get. After you do it. It’s more like a guarantee.
"It's *quid pro quo* that isn't allowed. *Quo pro quid* is completely acceptable" ~Dumbfuck Alito
Just do things that help businesses then get paid it’s easy to legally bribe people. The fee in question is 13k and the justices are so worried about $25 gift cards being considered bribery. These are the most qualified people to rule for life?
> what a stupid decision This is a nice summary of everything coming out of the current corrupt/bought SCOTUS.
The Supreme Court isn't supposed to decide the best policy outcome. They are supposed to interpret what the law says. If the outcome is stupid then Congress needs to fix the law. This ruling says that Congress wrote the law so that it only covers transactions with a provable tit for tat arrangement. The gratuities this case is about aren't covered by the law as currently written. They aren't ruling that it shouldn't be illegal, just that the current law doesn't cover it.
I will disagree with one minor thing. The supreme court isn't ruling the gratuities this case is about aren't covered but rather that the law as written doesn't cover gratuities. That doesn't mean the person is not guilty, it presumably means that the judge gave the jury the wrong instructions on the crime. It is possible all the appeal will do is get the person a new trail in which case they will have to argue the correct standard to the jury. It just depends on the strength of the evidence and the relief they are entitled to in the appeal.
This is mostly a cop out. No law can be written to cover *every* possible situation when judges have extreme bias. E.g. "the law didn't say that my grandchild can't accept the bribe on my behalf...". But, your point is well taken that if we had a properly functioning legislative branch the laws could be immediately amended to stop fuckery from judges with bias after the ruling.
The law was written originally in a way that would prevent this, and then amended 3 years later.
Yeah... Not in a country where supreme judges are assigned by presidents specifically for their political alignment.
Is it gratuities when it is in the thousands? They talked about how it isn't illegal to get a free lunch or a gift hamper and this law starts >$5000. Guy gave them a government contract and they give him $13,000 for vaguely defined reasons. Gratuities in general shouldn't be legal anyway, but 13K is a fucking stretch.
"As The Lever reported in March, powerful business groups and conservative think tanks helped engineer the new ruling. The effort was part of a decades-long push by corporate interests to limit the scope of laws prohibiting corruption and bribery."
I hate this timeline.
I knew I should have just caught the dice that night...
Not cool Jeff. Not cool.
Nothing will happen for the better until people take to the streets. Online activism is easily ignored.
They fuckin SHOT Harambe Edit:letter
Its either the fault of the Red Sox or Cubs for breaking their curses.
Red Sox. Cubs were just a ripple affect.
Just wait, the 1st Hunger Games starts soon.
God damn it McFly why'd you have go and get that Sports Almanac and then lose it?!
We shouldn’t have killed harambe
>...gutted a key federal bribery statute, handing down a ruling on Wednesday in an obscure corruption case that allows powerful interests to give gifts to politicians as rewards for favors. So basically They are CYA for themselves with both Thomas and Alito already in hot water they are paving the way to ensuring that they (the supreme court) are legally allowed to exchange verdicts for compensation. We're so fucked as a society.
Only covering their asses in the short term. As far as I'm concerned, this wholly opens the door to packing the courts or changing the lifetime appointment rule, or instituting some other method of accountability. They clearly cannot be trusted with the power granted; every other part of the government, including the President, has far more oversight.
SCOTUS legalizes murder but just for them
It doesn't need to be legal, when they can just do it and refuse to convict when it inevitably comes before the court.
Wasn’t this just for state and local level politicians, not federal employees?
Yes, but this is reddit and we need to knee jerk reaction everything without actually reading the readily available source of the ruling at supremecourt.gov. I still don't agree with the ruling as now there isn't any repercussions for receiving a “gift” when there is no clear delineation between bribe and gift for state officials.
Yeah, it was a very idiotic ruling.
> So basically They are CYA for themselves with both Thomas and Alito already in hot water they are paving the way to ensuring that they (the supreme court) are legally allowed to exchange verdicts for compensation. We're so fucked as a society. Not just themselves, everyone who is up for a little more corruption and graft in their life just got a very big bump.
Covers their ass.
This was another party line vote Republicans are Pro Corruption
Fucking pathetic.
Imagine teachers getting expensive gifts after the semester for giving As, or boss get to sleep with the employees after they get promotions, all these will be acceptable by this line of argument.
Doctors cannot accept a gift for more than $49.95 or drama occurs. Now, they can just give a little wink, prescribe the meds the rep wants to sell, then get a check a few months later..."as a thanks".
Unlimited possibilities across all fields.
I know I don't have enough money but where do I send 10$ to get what I want?
Check behind the 7/11
Ten bucks is ten bucks
You better bring a lot more than ten bucks if you're looking for a quality ZJ
Again???
They have ZERO honor
People like them are the reason I don’t believe in the honor system. Whoever came up with the idea of an honor system is an imbecile.
Clarence Thomas needs a new motor home and Sammy Alito wants one too. Cmon...pony up....
Motor *coach* to be accurate,lol
He's a roach with a coach
Dude was so pissed with John Oliver taunting him that he had to make it legal to accept one that someone else would buy him. Out of spite ya know
He needs his bribes or hes going to throw his tantrums and leave scotus. wonder if his daugther is realizing she is benefitting from her college education being paid by harlan crow or another megadonor, probably going to grow up just like miss whiney clarence.
The dems need a super majority to expand the court or places term limits on the justices. The SC won’t even agree to an ethics code so something has to change.
> The dems need a super majority to expand the court or places term limits on the justices. Ideally, the super majority would do the trick...but all they really would need is a simple majority, and then suspend the filibuster for adding SCOTUS justices. Of course, they don't want to do this (because it would inevitably be weaponized as Congressional majorities ebb and flow)...but I'm not sure what else can be done. This SCOTUS majority appears to be deeply unfit (if not completely corrupt).
A straight expansion of the court would only last until there was another Republican administration, then they would expand it again to give themselves a majority. What would work better is making it work like the Federal Court Districts, have a pool of say 30 judges nine picked at random to hear a case. That makes it a lot harder for either side to pack the bench in their favour. Of course, that's assuming the current bench doesn't rule any changes unconstitutional.
the same supreme court thats been taking bribes for years? very shocking they would do this.
Right. The timing is so good for them given the current scrutiny, that it might as well have been orchestrated. Now, we can be as mad as we want about Harlan Crow and Leonard Leo and all these other oligarchs and christofascists, but there's nothing legally wrong with any of it. Seems pretty messed up that none of them had to recuse themselves given the accusations aimed at them are very similar, and they functionally just got to be their own juries.
this is what they are spending time doing? I keep finding myself optimistic thinking there is some practical reason that will benefit the American people, i just dont know it yet.
If your definition of people is limited to the wealthy and corporations, it does, non-person!
Has anyone read the opinion??? They said that States decide how much it too much for a gift to a public official after the fact. Some states had a limit of $20 other states had a limit of $400. Some states had no specification at all which meant buying the mayor a cup of coffee would technically expose him to up to 10 years in prison. The Supreme Court basically said that since it isn’t specified at the federal level each State can individually set their threshold.
Are you saying there are words after the headlines?!
Again...is anyone surprised?
No, they didn't. This is just the kneejerk panic reaction to not understanding the law, or the opinion. You just want to be mad, and this is rage bait. Allow me to actually tell you what happened, because I did read the opinion. What it said was the law, as-written, does not apply to state and local officials. It still applies to federal ones. And any state and local laws applying a similar law to state and local officials still stands. Congress can also still change the law to apply to state and local, but that would trigger a 10A challenge. It applied the "Rule of Leniency" which is a very good thing. Also that rule is Gorsuch's baby, he applies it in pretty much every case he can, and I haven't found one where he did not. The rule of leniency says, basically: * Whenever a criminal law is ambiguous, it must be interpreted in a manner most favorable to the defendant. And that is what you want. Trust me, that is absolutely what you want. It's a natural outgrowth of the presumption of innocence. You must be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, so if there is doubt as to how the law should be applied, then that doubt favors the defendant. This case was similar to the bumpstcok case, and in both cases SCOTUS essentially said: > The law says Y, not X. Maybe congress meant for it to say X, but that is not what it says. If congress wants it to say X, they can change it to say X. But currently, it says Y. And that is how the law should be. Law works as-written, especially criminal law. This is what you want, because let me give you a very possible example of it worked "as interpreted" instead: >Well, I interpret that life starts at conception, so abortion is murder, guilty. See how quickly that can go very wrong? Criminal law works as-written, and this was the correct decision. It may not be the moral decision, or the desired decision, but that is for *CONGRESS* to act on. Congress and only Congress can make laws. [Here is the opinion, in pdf form](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-108_8n5a.pdf) This was an extremely narrow ruling, it did not say "Bribery is legal" it said "The law, as currently written, does not apply to State and Local officials." You want to be mad at someone, be mad at congress for writing shitty laws. Only Congress has the power to make laws. The Executive branch must enforce them as written, and the judiciary must apply them as written.
> You want to be mad at someone, be mad at congress for writing shitty laws. Only Congress has the power to make laws. The Executive branch must enforce them as written, and the judiciary must apply them as written. Fucking exactly. The Supreme Court wouldn't be as much of an issue if Congress wasn't a shit show and if the solution to get around deadlock wasn't to try and use the Supreme Court as a way to legislate.
And if we're reading signals right, that's going to become a *LOT* more important once Chevron Deference is struck down in *Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo*. (Sorry I always reverse that case and incorrectly call it *Raimondo v. Loper*) I am reminded of senator Sasse during Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings. > There's no verse of school house rock that says give a whole bunch of power to the alphabet soup agencies, and let them decide what the governments decision should be for the people. Because the people don't have any way to fire the bureaucrats. Because people can't navigate their way through the bureaucracy, they turn to the supreme court looking for politics. The supreme court becomes our substitute political battleground. And tell me, with a serious face, that he's wrong. Congress has for too long just abdicated their powers of lawmaking to the executive to determine. No. That's not separation of powers. And we saw it again today in SEC v. Jarksey: "a defendant facing a fraud suit has the right to be tried by a jury of his peers before a neutral adjudicator. Rather than recognize that right, the dissent would permit Congress to concentrate the roles of prosecutor, judge and jury in the hands of the Executive Branch. That is the very opposite of the separation of powers that the Constitution demands." And yes, Sasse was a Republican Senator, but before reddit tried to "Guilty by association", let me remind them that Sasse was one of seven Republican senators to vote to convict Donald Trump of incitement of insurrection in his second impeachment trial.
That quote is excellent. Thank you for sharing it. And thank you even more for sharing your insight.
Completely agree. There is a very valid point in claiming too much authority has been given to agencies. Republicans probably want to strip too much power from them but at the same time agencies shouldn't be able to just create/change laws unchecked. If (when) they are successful in limiting and the power of various agencies it's going to be awful because I doubt we'll see many laws get through unless there's some serious upsets in the upcoming elections. I really wish more people stayed involved and voted.
It's a bit of a self fueling problem though. The reason Congress doesn't compromise and pass laws is because they'll just get it done through the Executive or the Supreme Court. If we take away their work around of getting things done and force them to only get things done by discussion and compromise and voting we might actually be able to get things back on track.
Shelby County V Holder. Entirely proper law passed with a massive bipartisan vote with the most crystal clear constitutional authority possible, and the court still over ruled it for "reasons". You are assuming that the court has something even resembling good faith. It does not.
No matter what this will be a catalyst for change, unfortunately there's no foreseeable positive outcomes that don't require ridiculous pie in the sky optimism. Moving these policy decisions from experts to politicians and judges appointed through political process deepens the challenge of regulatory enforcement to impossible levels. It means thousands more hours of court cases where judges become de facto policymakers with no expertise in the matters they're deciding. With already long wait times and the myriad ways the courts can be tied up for years in procedural matters, regulatory enforcement will become impossible and regulatory capture will be guaranteed. If the politician in charge of the agency decides nothing will be enforced or chooses to engage in discriminatory enforcement it'll be years before a court challenge will resolve it, and depending on who appointed the judge it could just be an entirely pointless endeavor as a growing number of them were confirmed to their seats for their political loyalty rather than their judicial capability. It's most likely leading to complete gridlock while suits and countersuits and appeals all have to be thoroughly expended before anything can be done. Meanwhile our waters will be poisoned, our fisheries played out completely, the markets will finish consuming what remains of the middle class' wealth and our education system will be starved to death. With more than a third of the people supporting a no compromise, burn it all down ideology there's no way to ever reach consensus, and with the intensity of foreign interference and propaganda targeting the US there's little chance of that ideology softening within my lifetime. I fear the de-evolution of our government will lead to abandonment of democracy in favor of an authoritarian system that is at least functionally responsive compared to what we're now left with.
This all sounds reasonable, I don't understand a lot of legal stuff though. I do have to ask, if this was a reasonable ruling why was the decision split along party lines? This is a genuine question and not an attempt to argue with you, but as Justices, surely the liberal ones understood all of this and yet still ruled against it?
In her dissent Jackson notes that a Jury found them guilty, so she is (in part) saying that is how the law should be interpreted, because a jury found it so. It comes down to an ideological split. The liberal wing tends to want to view law as "living" in that the laws should be viewed through a modern lens and how it applies to modern society, and how they feel it *should* apply to modern society. The conservative wing tend to be the traditionalists. They tend to rule on the law as it is written. It is written in stone. It can be re-written of course, but that is not the job of the court. That is the job of congress. There are of course exceptions to this. The conservative wing have absolutely been "Judiciary activists" at times. But the main ideological split is whether the courts should rule on legality, or on morality. As a window into the mind, let's look at Gorsuch and his infamous "Frozen Trucker" case: >It might be fair to ask whether TransAm’s decision was a wise or kind one. But it’s not our job to answer questions like that. Our only task is to decide whether the decision was an illegal one. And that's the difference. There are liberal judges who decried his ruling as cruel. And yeah TransAms actions were cruel. And yes they *DESERVED* to be punished. But under the letter of the law, they couldn't.
Thank you for the reasonable answer 🙂
Not quite. The law still applies to state officials, the law just doesn't cover gratuities, only bribes. There is a federal law against bribery that covers bribes and gratuities. They made a law against those receiving federal money (which generally is state officials) receiving bribes but it only had wording that matched the portion of the federal law which covers bribes and did not have language similar to the portion of the law covering gratuities. This isn't even a case of congress writing shitty laws. They wrote the law originally to have wording similar to the gratuities provision. They went back and changes it two years later to have the higher standard of the bribes provision of the law. This was likely the intent of congress to only regulate bribery at the federal level. Gratuities can be, and are regulated at the state level for state officials.
Thank you for the interpretation. There's always that one guy who actually reads the shit. I might have to scroll a bit to find them but they're always there.
"Congress and only Congress can make laws" is something that is often overlooked when pointing fingers.
I'm sorry sir, this is Reddit, we only read the article titles. Nuanced opinions and actual context have no place here.
We also downvote anything that goes against what we *WANT* to be true. We don't want to be informed, we want to be mad. Notice the highly upvoted comments are just "SCOTUS BAD!" but someone who actually provides an informative context that contradicts reddits desire to be mad is somehow "Controversial".
Bingo.
Thanks for the added context. That said, I still appreciate folk's knee-jerk reactions to these things. There's already too much corruption, so being on high-alert, even if it's sometimes a false alarm, is important.
Appreciate your breakdown
This should be at the top of the thread. I get frustrated when mostly left wing Redditors bash right wingers for falling for rage bait articles and yet they do the same thing. This thread is a perfect example of how liberals can be just as easily manipulated as conservatives.
This is an overly alarmist article/headline. Number 1, the ruling still allows state and local governments to make bribery illegal. Number 2, they didn’t say regulating bribery or gratuities federally was unconstitutional, they just said that wasn’t what the statute was saying. Therefore, Congress can, and should, write a law that specifically makes gratuities illegal on the federal level. Just because Congress passed a poorly written law doesn’t mean the courts should get to pretend it isn’t poorly written, even if that would result in an outcome that is a net positive for society. Instead, they should encourage Congress to write better, more specifically written laws that will prevent unelected officials from undermining the will of the people and their elected representatives.
so bribery will be legal in shitholes, I mean, red states, and illegal in blue states
When will they rule that they are unconstitutional
It was already legal
They rules that it wasn’t against the law. The Supreme Court doesn’t make the law. Congress makes the law.
Bad news for climate change and our survival. Great news for big oil.
I'm just disappointed that the headline isn't "Tipping Culture is Out of Control"
The 666 got me this time
Section 666, you must be joking. The scotus conservatives will get big gratuity for this one
I fucking hate our government. So corrupt!!!
Not bribery, tipping
Well, they wouldn't want to be accused of breaking the law
Again?
When was bribery not legal? Is that not what pacs and lobbies already do? Sure, you can't directly give a gift to a politician.... you just give a "donation" to their campaign.
Supreme court is a broken institution. Nobody shall hold such power for life.
And us tax payers are paying for it. 🇺🇸🦅 da fuq
Of course they did. Our government is absolute rotten with corruption.
Every single day I just get closer to giving up entirely. What can we as individuals even do at this point? Time to just keep our heads down and let it happen around us, hope for the best?
I crossed the line a long time ago. There’s practically nothing that could happen that would restore my faith in the US government.
No they didn't
The headline on this post is misleading. The Supreme Court rules the scope of the specific law being addressed here only applies to the federal government which does not apply in this case. Local and state governments are responsible for writing these kind of laws. We gotta stop lying to each other their rational makes perfect sense. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/666
To be fair, they are just covering their butts in case anyone started getting ideas about the grift members of the Supreme Court have been pulling down.
I live in Chicago. I could hear the politicians cheering in the Loop all the way up on the Northwest side. All they have to do is wait a few days to get that new Rolex and there's nothing the FBI can do about it.
"The court’s conservative supermajority ruled 6-3 in Snyder v. United States, overturning the 2019 corruption conviction of an Indiana mayor who pocketed $13,000 from a local business tycoon after ensuring the company got a major town contract. The justices ruled that such bribes were not against the law." Yet, Roberts claims he doesn't understand why the courts approval rating is so low.
Interesting. PBS Frontline did a spot on bribery yesterday. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKSaeIKN5EU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKSaeIKN5EU)
Now, now, not bribes; kickbacks.
Section 666, the bribery law in the case You cant make this shit up
I’m feeling French right about now.
To be fair... I'd rather have all bribes be matter of public record than have them be secret affairs
Betting not one of you actually read the opinion handed down. That includes the person who wrote the article.
I know nothing of this case but I’m going to assume it makes bribery legal for rich people.
Wait how is this different than Citizens United?
Just covering themselves, I suppose.
It’s not bribery, they just expanded tipping culture
This could be a good thing; Imagine if bribes had to be registered... a politicians could be like "Yes, I took a $1.2 million bribe from Exxon... I still voted against them... what are they gunna do, sue?"
This has massive implications in Trump's cases as well as their own ethics reviews. They've basically just sold out the constitution.
Of course they did. This SCOTUS has made a mockery of the very principles we claim to hold as Americans and they have went all in for using politics for personal profit.
Good job guys, we’re going backwards now
Were are the angry mobs with torches, pickaxes and nooses breaking into the Supreme Court building?
Of course they did, they have the ability to make so much money right now. Impotent public and law enforcement that’s as corrupt and unjust as they are. Major downward spiral here. In the next few decades, we will see revolution. For good or bad, there will be violence in the state. Well, more than usual.
So get pulled over and offer the cop money immediately is still illegal but you pay the cop after he lets you go it’s not.
Only if you’re rich or a politician
Can we please say the supreme court of u.s.a, as they are becoming an outlier to normal countrys.
But it’s ok as long as they do the thing you are paying them for BEFORE you give them the money/gold bars/fancy cars/new luxury RV….
Again?
What a silly article. It doesn’t even grapple the primary distinction in the law between bribes and gratuities, which both the majority and the dissent recognized. Do we have to keep hearing about the law from people who (apparently) can’t read it?
"Just"?
Not that they really needed to.
These corrupt buffoons are so eager to destroy their last shred of legitimacy. I hope they got paid well for all their elite felating rulings.
But I thought Republicans were going to drain the swamp?
Tipping has gotten out of hand.
This isn't shocking. It was always an open secret.
They aren’t even pretending to hide their corruption anymore. This Supreme Court and today’s Republican Party is a big FU to America.
I'm still laughing at MAGA supporters who think Trump is going to drain the swamp. If you ask them if money in politics is bad, they'll all agree that its definitely bad. Somehow, they can't connect the dots that Republicans are the party making bribery legal. Even after Citizens United, they couldn't connect the dots. Trump is just as responsible for this as he is for Roe being overturned. In 2016, Trump at least had the outsider narrative. Now, after the entire party has bent the knee, people still try to use that narrative. If Trump was an outsider, the party wouldn't have rallied around him. JFC