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.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-108_8n5a.pdf
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.
Can I get a teal deer for that tldr?
TLDR of the TLDR:
Court said the gov charged him with the wrong thing. Look for another charge, he’s probably screwed.
Except SCOTUS will just strike down the next one too. The modern court has never supported bribery charges that come before it.
Edit to add a quick history from the last 25 years.
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.
[OLIGARCHY INTENSIFIES]
Clarence Thomas: “Come on guys, I really need this ruling.”
These people are all trash. All of them. Not a single decent MAGA in existence.
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
…Am I allowed to pass on to a better place now?
I know you’re probably just kidding (and it’s funny), but please don’t. I don’t even know you and I can promise this world is a better place with you in it
I’m not kidding, but I also cannot self-terminate so I’m not going anywhere anytime soon unless it’s a case of “Mind that bus!” “What bus?” splat
Which again I wouldn’t do intentionally because that would be self-termination and I can’t do that.
I’ve been there. The only thing that’s ever helped me feel like there’s a light at the end of the tunnel was talking to someone
For one, it sounds like they oppose corrupt courts, so that’s a plus!
This title is great lmao
bro i thought this was an onion post for a second what the fuck just happened
Just yet ANOTHER consequence of Trump’s first term…
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.
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.
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?
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.
This is not a subreddit, and this is the original article’s title.
Right? Dude thinks this is reddit.
Is pepsi okay?
What do we call the Lemmy version of a subreddit?
Community.
There are already rules. One of the rules is that the title of the post has to match the title of the article. This post follows that rule.
That title is directly from the article. You think the OP should instead use their own title?
Holy fuck! As if Citizens United wasn’t bad enough. Our government is fully for sale now.
Same as it ever was.
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.
… but worse!
And with this final blow… the entire government of the USA is up for sale!
Isn’t this simply the natural progression of capitalism in action? Everything’s for sale, everything has a price.
I don’t think this decision would apply to like federal purchasing officials… so not yet.
It’s a federal law, and federal SCOTUS. there’s no reason why it wouldn’t.
Is there somewhere with more details?
Also I meant non elected officials like purchasing officials.
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.
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
I meant more like non elected officials, like a Contracting Officer.
who cares about those?, when the Secretaries and all the high level officials running everything can be bought
It proves that it already was and has been. Citizens United tipped their hand that anyone with money (regardless of citizenship) is welcome to play.
That’s not really news, but i’m always shocked how cheap they are.
🌎🧑🚀🔫🧑🚀
SCOTUS has officially entered the sewage system courtesy of the GOP and Trump.
and Trump
Lol read up on Bush v. Gore in 2000.
Since long ago, my friend. Citizens United was a landmark in my opinion, although there are probably older rulings that showed how little they care about basic functionality in a democracy.
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.
