CitizenVectron Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 Supreme Court says state officials can engage in a little corruption - Vox WWW.VOX.COM Snyder v. US is the Republican justices’ latest decision weakening anti-corruption laws. Quote On a 6-3 party-line vote, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that state officials may accept "gratuities" from people who wish to reward them for their official actions, despite a federal anti-corruption statute that appears to ban such rewards. Quote The case involves James Snyder, a former mayor who accepted a $13,000 gratuity from a truck company after the city purchased five trash trucks from that company for $1.1 million. Snyder claims that the money was a consulting fee, but federal prosecutors nonetheless charged him with violating an anti-corruption statute. Snyder turns on a distinction between "bribes" and "gratuities." As Kavanaugh writes, "bribes are payments made or agreed to before an official act in order to influence the official with respect to that future official act." Gratuities, by contrast, "are typically payments made to an official after an official act as a token of appreciation." 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLeon Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 So you just have to accept the bribe a little later? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Vic20 Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 I'm really impressed with you ethical handling of our business arrangements! As a token of my respect, here's a pocket full of money. Do something nice for yourself, you're a good person and you deserve it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spork3245 Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneticBlueprint Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 A little corruption is okay. Not a lot, though. Okay fine, a lot. But not too much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xbob42 Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 Well it's only fair we get to punish them physically as well! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarSolo Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 Oh they’re totally building up to the immunity case being in Trump’s favor. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaysWho? Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 *sighs in 2016* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwinIon Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 I imagine that a lot of practicing law is like this, but when I read decisions like this I'm still perplexed at how someone can read text and come to such a different conclusion. In the decision, page 7 gives us the text for section 666, which reads: Quote “Whoever . . . being an agent of an organization, or of a State, local, or Indian tribal government, or any agency thereof [that receives more than $10,000 in federal funds annually] 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; . . . shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.” On page 12 Kavanaugh writes: Quote The Government had to choose between two options for how to read §666. The Government could read §666 to ban all gratuities, no matter how trivial, in connection with covered official acts. That option might be clear enough. But that draconian approach would border on the absurd and exacerbate the already serious federalism problems with the Government’s reading of §666. Alternatively, the Government could recognize the irrationality of reading §666 to criminalize all such gratuities. And to deal with the overbreadth problems, the Government could make atextual exceptions on the fly. The Government opted for the second approach, seeking to soothe concerns about overbreadth by saying that the statute, even under its view, would not cover “innocuous” or “obviously benign” gratuities. Brief for United States 39; Tr. of Oral Arg. 41, 45–49. But that effort to address those overbreadth concerns has simply moved the Government from one sinkhole to another. The flaw in the Government’s approach—and it is a very serious real-world problem—is that the Government does not identify any remotely clear lines separating an innocuous or obviously benign gratuity from a criminal gratuity. The Government simply opines that state and local officials may not accept “wrongful” gratuities. Brief for United States 39; Tr. of Oral Arg. 46. That is no guidance at all. Is a $100 Dunkin’ Donuts gift card for a trash collector wrongful? What about a $200 Nike gift card for a county commissioner who voted to fund new school athletic facilities? Could students take their college professor out to Chipotle for an end-of-term celebration? And if so, would it somehow become criminal to take the professor for a steak dinner? Or to treat her to a Hoosiers game? It's not all that many words. Did we read the same thing? No, a $100 Dunkin' giftcard isn't a problem because it's under $5,000. None of this is a problem. It only comes up if you leap through all the crazy hoops that he does in order to not read the text as written. Moreover, he only decides to jump through all those hoops over the word "corruptly." It's a wild game of running around what otherwise seems to be a pretty straightforward law. Reading Jackson's dissent is by contrast, very straightforward. She basically just says, again and again, "the text here is pretty clear, just read the words on the page." Turns out if you just read the words like any normal person, there doesn't seem like a lot to argue about. Yeah, maybe it could be more clear, but this court had the ability to clarify those rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5timechamp Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 If you thought “tipping” culture was out of control before… cant wait to commit a crime and offer a cop a gratuity… “its not prostitution, its a consensual encounter with a gratuity for proper enunciation” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outsida Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 So post hoc bribes are very legal and very cool? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 Does this override state anti-corruption laws or does it "just" nullify federal anti-corruption laws? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stepee Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 Corrupt people rule that corruption is legal wow wow wow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haya Dune Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 1 hour ago, MarSolo said: Oh they’re totally building up to the immunity case being in Trump’s favor. Yeah, that's what I think is going on. I hope we're wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TUFKAK Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 Seems about right Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 1 hour ago, stepee said: Corrupt people rule that corruption is legal wow wow wow Quote Snyder’s absurd and atextual reading of the statute is one only today’s Court could love. From the dissent from Justice Jackson 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legend Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 God they're so fucking awful. There's not even a thin veil at this point. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricofoley Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 Biden should call a press conference where he just dumps out a big burlap sack full of stacks of cash on a table and asks, "How much to overturn Dobbs?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marioandsonic Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 Supreme Court blocks EPA's "good neighbor" rule aimed at combating air pollution WWW.CBSNEWS.COM The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to grant the request from Ohio, two other states and energy companies. We really need a SCOTUS general to keep track of this shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5timechamp Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 guess now that the Courts immunity has been shown to be locked in they decided to start acting with impunity… this bodes well for Trump, the corruption of the SCOTUS with no mechanisms for punishment means he can press the “SCOTUS” button and overturn anything significant that goes against him….. I cant wait to see how the SCOTUS is leveraged against a “contested” election result…. checks and balances lol, quaint 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greatoneshere Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 I would also like a SCOTUS official thread where we can put every bad (and good) decision in for reference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 2 hours ago, marioandsonic said: Supreme Court blocks EPA's "good neighbor" rule aimed at combating air pollution WWW.CBSNEWS.COM The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to grant the request from Ohio, two other states and energy companies. We really need a SCOTUS general to keep track of this shit. How much of a gratuity will the 5 get for the ruling? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TUFKAK Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 Truly the shining city on the hill, a marvel for the rest of world to be emulated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwinIon Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 While we're on the topic of the court, the Purdue Pharma bankruptcy ruling is pretty interesting, and a rare decision that wasn't decided on the standard ideological lines. The majority opinion throws out a long delayed and complex bankruptcy deal that many debtors and affected families were anxious to see put into effect. There were a lot of states and individuals that were looking forward to getting part of the $6B settlement, and now they're back at square one. However, that ruling protected the Sackler family in a way that always seemed wrong to me. Their company goes bankrupt and now they are personally shielded from any lawsuit or claim against themselves, including any claims that they pulled in too much money from that company? That felt like letting them off the hook in a way that a bankruptcy court shouldn't be able to decide. I didn't read much of the decision itself, which is pretty technical and boring, but I honestly don't know which side I agree with on this one, though I'm leaning towards the majority. I don't want the Sacklers to get protection from any other potential cases. I want to see as many parties as possible go after their blood money and suck them dry. Their company went bankrupt, but they'll were all going to remain filthy rich. They still might (and probably will), but at least now there is the chance for more cases to be brought against them. I do feel bad for all the individuals and organizations that were hoping to use the settlement money to rebuild their lives and do some good, but I wasn't exactly confident that the states would put that money to use in the best ways. Hopefully they all still get paid, it'll just take a while longer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LazyPiranha Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 4 minutes ago, TwinIon said: While we're on the topic of the court, the Purdue Pharma bankruptcy ruling is pretty interesting, and a rare decision that wasn't decided on the standard ideological lines. The majority opinion throws out a long delayed and complex bankruptcy deal that many debtors and affected families were anxious to see put into effect. There were a lot of states and individuals that were looking forward to getting part of the $6B settlement, and now they're back at square one. However, that ruling protected the Sackler family in a way that always seemed wrong to me. Their company goes bankrupt and now they are personally shielded from any lawsuit or claim against themselves, including any claims that they pulled in too much money from that company? That felt like letting them off the hook in a way that a bankruptcy court shouldn't be able to decide. I didn't read much of the decision itself, which is pretty technical and boring, but I honestly don't know which side I agree with on this one, though I'm leaning towards the majority. I don't want the Sacklers to get protection from any other potential cases. I want to see as many parties as possible go after their blood money and suck them dry. Their company went bankrupt, but they'll were all going to remain filthy rich. They still might (and probably will), but at least now there is the chance for more cases to be brought against them. I do feel bad for all the individuals and organizations that were hoping to use the settlement money to rebuild their lives and do some good, but I wasn't exactly confident that the states would put that money to use in the best ways. Hopefully they all still get paid, it'll just take a while longer. Don’t feel too bad. There was an episode of Last Week Tonight where they were talking about that opioid money and a shit ton of it is getting handed to the police like candy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ominous Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 What the actual fuck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LazyPiranha Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 16 minutes ago, Ominous said: What the actual fuck About the case, or about the money going to cops? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 From the EPA case: Quote Justice Gorsuch's opinion refers five times to "nitrous oxide" (aka laughing gas) rather than the entirely different chemical compound -- smog-causing "nitrogen oxides" -- actually at issue in the case. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ominous Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 2 hours ago, LazyPiranha said: About the case, or about the money going to cops? The concept that payment before you do a deal is bad but after you do the deal is ok. This shit is everywhere now. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LazyPiranha Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 The thing that bothers me about tipping everywhere is people blame it on greedy employees. No man, blame the greedy companies that don’t pay these people enough. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted June 28 Author Share Posted June 28 Supreme Court overturns 1984 Chevron precedent, curbing power of federal government | CNN Politics WWW.CNN.COM The Supreme Court significantly weakened the power of federal agencies to approve regulations in a major decision Friday that could have sweeping implications for the... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greatoneshere Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 The hits keep on coming: The Supreme Court’s chaotic SEC v. Jarkesy decision endangers “hundreds of statutes” - Vox WWW.VOX.COM SEC v. Jarkesy could render much of the federal government unable to function. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted June 28 Author Share Posted June 28 Supreme Court reverses Grants Pass homelessness case, finds city’s public camping laws aren’t ‘cruel and unusual’ WWW.OREGONLIVE.COM The court issued the opinion in a 6 to 3 vote, largely along ideological lines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted June 28 Author Share Posted June 28 Supreme Court makes it harder to charge Jan. 6 Capitol riot defendants with obstruction WWW.PBS.ORG The justices ruled that the charge of obstructing an official proceeding, enacted in 2002 in response to the financial scandal that brought down Enron Corp., must include proof that... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 Supreme Court makes it harder to charge Jan. 6 Capitol riot defendants with obstruction WWW.PBS.ORG The justices ruled that the charge of obstructing an official proceeding, enacted in 2002 in response to the financial scandal that brought down Enron Corp., must include proof that defendants tried to tamper with or destroy documents. Only some of the people who violently attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, fall into that category. Quote The Supreme Court on Friday made it harder to charge Capitol riot defendants with obstruction, a charge that also has been brought against former President Donald Trump. The justices ruled that the charge of obstructing an official proceeding, enacted in 2002 in response to the financial scandal that brought down Enron Corp., must include proof that defendants tried to tamper with or destroy documents. Only some of the people who violently attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, fall into that category. The decision could be used as fodder for claims by Trump and his Republican allies that the Justice Department has treated the Capitol riot defendants unfairly. It’s unclear how the court’s decision will affect the case against Trump in Washington, although special counsel Jack Smith has said the charges faced by the former president would not be affected. Quote ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS, ALITO, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, and JACKSON, JJ., joined. JACKSON, J., filed a concurring opinion. BARRETT, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR and KAGAN, JJ., joined. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.