Bro… Fuck this country.
Saw the title, figured it couldn’t be that bad. Read the article. It is that bad.
Then they at the end they give that know an extra twist by specifically mentioning two justices notorious for receiving substantial
bribesrewards who didn’t feel the need to recuse themselves.That’s exactly what I did too. I was like “they’ve gotta be exaggerating.” Nope, not at all. Ffs
Haha, what a silly Onion article!
:checks URL:
Oh. Oh no.
Welcome to
Russiapost-Covid world
This is quid pro quo being ruled as NOT bribery because it comes to the person on the backside of the favor. This is almost certainly to do with the majority of the court recently being outed about the amount of high value
bribesgifts/vacations they are getting from “friends”.“We realized that people now knew the things we constantly do that are wrong, so we made them not wrong anymore.”
“We’ve investigated ourselves and found no evidence of wrongdoing”
This is almost certainly to do with the majority of the court recently being outed about the amount of high value bribes gifts/vacations they are getting from “friends”.
Nah, this is a long running theme. In chronological order-
Sun Diamond Growers - The government must prove the bribe is actually connected to the act.
Skilling - Corruption charges require a second party to give you a bribe or kickback, self dealing is fine.
Citizens United - Money is political speech, and you can spend as much as you want on an election.
McDonnell - Acting as a pay to play gatekeeper is fine. Even if the government connects the bribe to the act.
Ted Cruz - Politicians can keep unspent campaign funds as long as they maintain the fiction of having lent the campaign money.
Snyder - Kickbacks aren’t actionable. <- We are here.
typically payments made to an official after an official act as a token of appreciation
Am I taking crazy pills or is this asshole just literally saying here that it’s okay to be corrupt?
Don’t worry, it’s only okay if the payment is made after the act is carried out. Everyone knows that corruption follows a strict order of operations, which if broken, means it’s not corruption anymore!
It removes one of the angles that made attempting to bribe someone risky: they could just take the bribe but then do what they were going to do anyways. Can’t really retaliate legally without admitting you tried to bribe someone and if they told anyone about it in private, then there’s a good chance that motive will come out if the official ends up dead.
But now the whole process is going to be the official does the act and it’s the briber’s choice if they follow through.
If they ever flip back to a Democrat majority, it’s going to take decades to undo all the damage this court has done (and they’ll still have the incentive to not undo stuff like this).
Longer than that. Democrats are pretty centrist these days, so some of this will linger on for long long time.
Joe Biden nearly got 1 food truck in to gaza from the 300 million dollar pier and one of Israel’s bomb shipments was 10 minutes late thanks to him though. That’s bringing the left and liberals together.
Yet another thing that tens of millions of people across the country would instantly lose their job for, made even MORE ok for the people who can cause the most damage by doing it. Every corporate conflict of interest training I’ve taken at current companies makes it abundantly clear that even the APPEARANCE of a POTENTIAL conflict needs to be disclosed and handled appropriately. Never mind there being literal, in writing, cash money kickbacks.
When it comes to having lower standards for state officials given special powers than we do for random schmucks, at least we’re consistent. From the lowest local cop to the highest federal politicians, why do we not only refuse to set standards but also remove ethical expectations?
Yet another thing that tens of millions of people across the country would instantly lose their job for
Would they? Vendors in the private sector are constantly handing out goodies to clients. Sports tickets, food, gift baskets and more. Hell, I’ve seen vendors pay for vacations in the private sector.
Also, as the case states, these things are largely illegal to varying degrees at the state level for state and local employees. This decision just said the Feds can’t pile on with additional charges.
The way I read all of this and th decision is that they are saying that this law specifically only applies to bribery. They define it as a quid quo pro in advance of an act.
In this particular case, you can’t charge the guy with bribery because it doesn’t meet the definition.
That doesn’t mean a “tip after the fact” isn’t corrupt. That doesn’t mean that’s not in violation of some other law. It’s saying that you can’t apply this law to this case. This court is threading a fucking needle in an attempt to make this a state issue and say the Fed law can’t apply.
Justice Jackson’s dissent is amazing though:
Snyder’s absurd and atextual reading of the statute is one only today’s Court could love."
The Court’s reasoning elevates nonexistent federalism concerns over the plain text of this statute and is a quintessential example of the tail wagging the dog," Jackson added.
Officials who use their public positions for private gain threaten the integrity of our most important institutions. Greed makes governments—at every level—less responsive, less efficient, and less trustworthy from the perspective of the communities they serve,"
SCOTUS has routinely bent over backwards to protect politicians from corruption and bribery charges though so the message is clear. You cannot charge a politician with bribery except in extreme circumstances. Like them being a democrat.
“At every level” she’s making specific reference to a specific certain level in the US judicial system here… Some pretty good, brave activism three - good luck getting your mom a house from a billionaire now Justice Jackson
Your comment is nonsensical. Format that shit. And wtf, are you saying Judge Jackson is corrupt as well? You are making no sense.
Their formatting was dog dukey, but I was still able to parse what they were saying fairly easily. They’re saying “good job judge Jackson. Too bad you won’t be able to get a free house from insert evil billionaire here (/s)”. While I agree with your sentiment, the way you go about pointing these things out can backfire, if done with a rude tone, such as the way you chose to do it. There you go; an unsolicited constructive criticism for an unsolicited constructive criticism. :)
I like you better than yourr brother James.
Holy fuck! As if Citizens United wasn’t bad enough. Our government is fully for sale now.
Same as it ever was.
… but worse!
And you may find yourself behind the wheel of a large automobile. And you may ask yourself, “Well, how did I get here?”
Thanks to the Supreme Court, that’s how
Same as it ever was!
Same as it ever was.
Same as it ever was?
These people are all trash. All of them. Not a single decent MAGA in existence.
my condolences
I guarantee this is happening in your country too whether or not it’s legal.
Whether it is legal or not is the whole crux of the thing…
If it isn’t legal then it is purely a matter of the skill of law enforcement. If it is legal then well, condolences.
If it is legal then well, condolences.
Law enforcement still has their… ways. They might suddenly find bad of white powder.
it is purely a matter of the skill of law enforcement
This is America. Law enforcement exists to protect the rich and powerful, especially from this sort of thing. The politicians get caught are just too stupid to figure out how to hide it.
Also, as others have pointed out, this doesn’t actually legalize corruption.
Well, my condolences x2 then
That’s the bigger thing to have condolences about, honestly. In general, if you’re rich and powerful, you can do whatever the hell you want in the U.S. and the law will be on your side. That’s one of the reasons why it’s so amazing that Trump was found guilty in the New York trial.
I hear you, well that’s just plain depressing, hope it changes at some point. Sometimes it has to get worse to get better.
When the illusion of a successful country dissipates that’s when the real changes can be introduced.
Unrestrained capitalism will never solve your country mounting problems that one I am sure. At some point the problems will become too severe to brainwash even the most easily influenced voters. As long as they have it good or ok, they can be recruited but there’s a limit and populism is inherently short-sighted and thus short-lived. It’s akin to burst of anger out of denial that can’t survive long in it’s powerful but unstable state of constant crisis. Trump is a harbringer of change and a proof that we hate changes but there’s nothing anyone can do to stop them and those trumps and such only accelerate the inevitable societal progress. I wouldn’t say let him rule because this would be unfair to many people but it will eventually pass and will be a building block for the better tomorrow.
There’s no power in the world that could bring back catholic medieval society at this point.
I hope so too.
I guarantee this is happening in your country too whether or not it’s legal
So is murder, that doesn’t make it not bad if the highest court in the land makes murder legal
Jesus Christ. What a comment. 🤦
Yeah like squid get some sugar in the blood or hydrate or smh are you all right
I never said it wasn’t bad. Of course it’s bad. I’m just saying politicians are being bribed everywhere and getting away with it all the time whether or not it’s legal. So yes, this is bad, but I also don’t think much will change because of it.
You literally have to be hoarding gold bars to get punished for that sort of thing in America.
Plus, as others have pointed out, this doesn’t actually legalize corruption because the issue here can still be covered by other laws.
Navalny, is that you?
I didn’t think they could weaken it any further, you already had to get caught on tape exchanging money, laughing maniacally, and saying, “This is a bribe for X action.”
Now you can do that, as long as it happens after the politician delivers. That’s a kickback. It’s the fucking definition of a kickback. They gave someone a contract and the contractor then gave the contract giver a large sum of money.
So is the difference “I’ll give you money to do this thing” versus “I’ll give you money if you do this thing”?
They both sound like bribes to me. Money, goods, or services are just handed over at different times.
I fucking hate these people. No shame. No morals. No humanity.
My interpretation of the article is that it’s a question of timing. If you offer me money in order to hook you up, that’s a bribe. But if I hook you up and later you give me money in thanks, that’s not a bribe.
Obviously both of them are corrupt. But apparently this law can only target the former.
No see the first one is a bribe, the second one is a job. I’m paying you for your time! /s
That was actually the argument made by the official in question. Called it a “consulting fee”.
I should’ve been a consultant. I could have a few yachts by now…my country would be destroyed, but at least I could be in my own little world.
It’s a kickback. They just made kickbacks completely legal.
So that means that I can engage in a a little tax evasion, as a treat, right?
On a serious note, from the article:
the law makes it a very serious crime, punishable by up to 15 years in prison, for a federal official to accept a bribe
Can we start actually enforcing this please?
Define bribe and you’ll start to see where enforcing this becomes a problem. Especially with legalized corruption in the form of lobbying and ‘gifts’.
Well, federal officials are already forbidden from accepting gifts/anything valued more than $25 in one instance, and no more than $100 a year from any one group or person. Enforcing that seems like a good place to start.
Billionaires can just make a coupon thousand shell orgs to funnel $100ks into their pockets.
Legislators, executives, and jurists aren’t officials in the sense you mean. They are referring to government employees, who can still receive every joyful punishment a prosecutor can dream of.
Well, perhaps the wording should be amended to encompass all public employees. But that would require the law be rewritten by the people that benefit from it, so, yeah.
Can we start actually enforcing this please?
No. You can’t bind the rich.
If you write “NOT BRIBE” on the cheek, it obviously CANNOT be a bribe.
I nominate this guy for SCOTUS
I think SCOTUS isn’t relevant anymore. If i were a state governor I would flat out refuse to abide by or use a guidance anything coming from this “court”.
The Supreme Court members who outed themselves as pro-corruption need to be given the 'Vote of No Confidence" treatment. Not just Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas, also remove the ones who quietly voted for post action bribes to be legal.
At this point it’s pretty easy to imagine a governor or president giving the SC the finger and doing what they want.
Unfortunately when I see that play out in my mind, it’s a Republican doing it. Yes, even though the SC is biased in their direction.
I believe this happened, and is still happening in regards to Texas ignoring the SC ruling about letting federal Border Patrol agents access to certain parts of the border.
Greg Abbott would certainly ignore any decision he didn’t agree with.
They’ve made their decision, now let them enforce it.
