8mo ago

Supreme Court wipes out anti-corruption law that bars officials from taking gifts for past favors

www.latimes.com Supreme Court wipes out anti-corruption law that bars officials from taking gifts for past favors

The U.S. Supreme Court rules state and local officials may take gifts and payments for steering contracts to grateful patrons.

Paywall removed: https://archive.is/wI5Gu

30 comments

Literally, officially, it's now entirely legal under federal law for officials to accept and even solicit bribes for specific services rendered, just so long as they do it after, rather than before, the service is rendered.
They aren't even pretending to be a legitimate court of law any more - they're just a rubber-stamping service for the oligarchy.
- It's long past time to flush these turds
  
  Yeah, they are actually just seeing how far they can go by now. This is a direct "Fuck you" right in our faces.
  
  There is no process or procedure that can undo these people. The system has failed us.
- There's also nothing stopping them from taking a bribe for something they've already done if they do something else. "Hey, I'll pay you for the books you banned if you make hrt illegal"
- just so long as they do it after, rather than before, the service is rendered.
  Other way around. They can accept the bribe, but only after they have given whatever political favor they sold.
  
  Right. Go back and reread it - that's what I said.
  
  That's the other way of saying the same thing.

Work would freak out if I accepted a gift from a client. I'd probably be fired. Yet somehow, this is okay for servants of the public.
Don't forget to vote this November. We are stuck with these dickheads until they die or retire because we fucked up in 2016 and Trump installed these assholes in rapid succession after McConnell refused to let Obama seat a justice. I'd also really appreciate more of the capped prescriptions Biden has done, paying $35 a month instead of hundreds for insulin. If he can cap some other medications, we will be one step closer to universal healthcare.

In ruling for the former mayor, the justices drew a distinction between bribery, which requires proof of an illegal deal, and a gratuity that can be a gift or a reward for a past favor. They said the officials may be charged and prosecuted for bribery, but not for taking money for past favors if there was no proof of an illicit deal.
huh?
[Ketanji Brown Jackson] said the mayor’s “absurd and atextual reading of the statute is one only today’s court could love.”
lol, GOTTEM
Prosecutors said James Snyder was heavily in debt and behind in paying his taxes when he became mayor of Portage, Ind., in 2012. The city needed new garbage trucks, and the mayor took over the required public bidding. He spoke regularly with two brothers who owned a local truck dealership that also had financial problems, and he designed the bidding process so that only their two new trucks would meet all of its standards. He also arranged to have the city buy an older truck that was on their lot.
Two weeks after the contracts were final, the mayor went to see the two brothers and told them of his financial troubles. They agreed to write him a check for $13,000 for undefined consulting services.
Seriously, how is that not outright corruption?
- So let me get this straight, it's not bribery because they had written contracts and it was afterwards? So if I let an official make investments into my company on behalf of me and I gave him money for it, it's only a problem if I gave him money before or I had no contract to show for it.
  That is such a bonkers distinction I really wanna see how the fuck they define if the contract for the legal bribery is sufficient or not. Does it need a stamp? What the fuck
  
  Arguably it's networking though it bears a fun similarity to the right losing its shit over bidens son getting a job he probably didn't deserve like every other rich kid on the planet.
- And it's even played out perfectly, all cliches and circumstances check out.

This is some third world shit going down. Hey America: long term violent protests combined with a general strike.
Plan a a date, print up flyers. Do it.

Thomas creamin his pants rn
- The new RV he's going to get also converts into a houseboat

A "donation" up front says I'll see what I can do, money after the fact says I'll fight for you. Sounds like bribery to me. Not that the current system isn't but backend feels so much worse

What happened to “legislating from the bench”? Pepperidge Farm remembers when repubes were against it
- In short it's typically limited to when judges make things up whole cloth, like qualified immunity, without legal basis. In judicial circles striking down laws or saying a law isn't applicable in a certain circumstance typically isn't regarded as legislating as they are ruling on the justness and applicability of an existing law rather than creating something wholely new.

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.
- Can't figure out through what warped interpretation that the ex-mayor's conduct doesn't meet the criteria of the statute, especially a1B. Help me out here:
  18 US Code Sec 666
  
  It's somewhat long to post it all for a comment so I'll link it:
  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.

It's amazing how almost every job not in the government already acknowledges and penalises this as a crime. But because these folks actually instate the rules they have to follow their somehow exempt from the same standards.