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.
Posted this in another thread on the issue but worth saying again because most people see to be confused as to the actual implications of this ruling:
Although a gratuity or reward offered and accepted by a state or local official after the official act may be unethical or illegal under other federal, state, or local laws, the gratuity does not violate §666.
Tldr the ruling only was about in relation to one law. The party may be guilty of a form of corruption under a different law.
Read page 2 of the syllabus where it says “Held:” until page 4 if you want the shorter version.
Otherwise there’s a 16 page explanation under the “opinion of the court” section directly after the syllabus, for those who are interested in a longer explanation.
This is clearly a dark road to go down and a terrible idea for the country. I personally couldn’t be anymore against this.
That said should there not be stricter rules on titles on a news subreddit? A lot of the titles I’ve seen recently are clearly prejudiced or undescriptive.
I think it’s important we maintain a high level of accuracy on news subreddits to limit the spread of misinformation.
My bad, I didn’t realise that that was the article title. I’m surprised that Vox chose to go with that title but obviously that’s got nothing to do with this post or the community rules.
Vocabulary question X + shell + powder = bullet, what is X?
Because usually the threat is that X will be delivered through use of powder the destination of the shell is ambiguous but not included in the delivery.
When you deliver while (unfired) bullets it’s generally not considered a threat.
That very much depends on how the unfired bullet(s) is/are delivered. Did we leave a bullet on the lieutenant’s pillow or did we give the politician a box of the latest match grade hunting rounds with a bow on it?
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,"
“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
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. :)
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.
Oh, I thought the headline meant that elected officials (state officials) could engage in corruption. I didn’t read it as Justices of SC could do so, only that they said it’s ok.
I know but if kickbacks are legal for the town mayor in federal law then it’s hard to see how they wouldn’t be legal for purchasing officials. The logic is that after the fact “gratuities” are just gifts.
Ethically one would say so, but legally there are different laws written that directly constrain things around bribery for career employees.
Somehow I am extremely skeptical this ruling even applies, and if it does I think it only invalidates one of plethora of laws and regulations…
If you take any training on how to get a contract with the government there is without fail a section that goes over the at least two laws, if not more, about why you can’t bribe them and how you shouldn’t bribe them in various ways.
regular federal officials were up for sale way before this… the combined “corporations are people” and “money is free speech” nonsense meant anyone can openly throw money at anyone up for election and that’s A-OK because free speech