The Supreme Court rules that state officials can engage in a little corruption, as a treat
Snyder v. US is the Republican justices’ latest decision weakening anti-corruption laws.
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 bribes gifts/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.
Holy fuck! As if Citizens United wasn't bad enough. Our government is fully for sale now.
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’.
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.
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.
It's a kickback. They just made kickbacks completely legal.
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
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.
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...
unfortunately you may be right, but the onion also has a very specific type of title that they write out, and this was pretty close.
i love how the standard went from "the appearance of impropriety" to "you know what, just leave the money on the counter".
NOT THAT COUNTER!!! That is the bribe counter! You put it NEXT the bribe counter so nobody gets the wrong idea.
No that's fine too, we'll just blow up the journalist and bury the story. #PanamaPapers
Haha, what a silly Onion article!
:checks URL:
Oh. Oh no.
Welcome to Russia post-Covid world
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 bribes rewards 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
Its just out in the open. Corruption on full blast.
Haha, yeh.
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.
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.
Politicians can legally be bribed after the fact now. Phew, what a relief.
I guess step two is to decide exactly how many hours a bribe needs to be given, before doing someone a favour, for it to just be considered a gift.
seems like a good thread to plug https://represent.us
they describe themselves as
RepresentUs is America’s leading nonpartisan anti-corruption organization fighting to fix our broken and ineffective government. We unite people across the political spectrum to pass laws that hold corrupt politicians accountable, defeat special interests, and force the government to meet the needs of the American people.
here's their policy platform https://represent.us/policy-platform/
they claim to have played a part in over 185 pieces of legislation (mostly at the state level) that contributed to their core platform https://represent.us/our-wins/
here are their ongoing campaigns presented state by state https://represent.us/2024-campaigns/
nobody and no organization are perfect but I feel like most people can find something to agree on here
If you write "NOT BRIBE" on the cheek, it obviously CANNOT be a bribe.
I nominate this guy for SCOTUS
Next up "donor" patches for clothing, donor branded shoes, and donor outfits. Have our state officials look like NASCAR.
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.
SCOTUS has officially entered the sewage system courtesy of the GOP and Trump.
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.
and Trump
Lol read up on Bush v. Gore in 2000.
These people are all trash. All of them. Not a single decent MAGA in existence.
Guillotine
🛎️ SHAME!
Maybe a bit of flogging?
Oh Arin ! That's your sokution to everything ☝️☝️😁
Worked for the French 🤷♂️
my condolences
I guarantee this is happening in your country too whether or not it's legal.
Navalny, is that you?
[OLIGARCHY INTENSIFIES]
When can we start gifting them with bonfires as thanks for this change in law?
We taking your car or mine?
And with this final blow... the entire government of the USA is up for sale!
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.
🌎🧑🚀🔫🧑🚀
Isn't this simply the natural progression of capitalism in action? Everything's for sale, everything has a price.
That's not really news, but i'm always shocked how cheap they are.
I don't think this decision would apply to like federal purchasing officials... so not yet.
It's not a bribe it's a gift! But it sounds like they need to rewrite the law. Politicians shouldn't be accepting gratuities, gifts, or bribes.
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.
....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
For one, it sounds like they oppose corrupt courts, so that's a plus!
Openly corrupt assholes rule being openly corrupt very legal and very cool.
Yeah, that sounds about right.
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.
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.
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.
NOW is the proper time for Alito to hang his fucking flag upside down.
JFC.
Now the politicians want tips?!
Remember highest tipper gets to control the Domi.
Wait. I shouldn’t make that joke- sex work is way more honest.
Clarence Thomas: “Come on guys, I really need this ruling.”
It's a GOOD THING none of these Justices ruling on the Legality of Bribery have EVER taken Bribes!
This title is great lmao
It's why they got elected.
They weren't elected.
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.
*Appointed
And I get embarrassed by Indiana once again. Sigh.
Remember kids, bribes are a sometimes food 🙃
A little less prosecution a little corruption please
All this misdirection is satisfactionin' me
A little less bite and a lot more dark
A lot less right just to serve the sharks
Close your mouth, evil off the chart baby pacify me
pacify me, baby
Who's ready for a sit it?
I've posted this elsewhere but I hate this so: 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
Sounds like someone could use a little treat.
Cake or Death, but if you choose cake, it's only given AFTER the death
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.
That title is directly from the article. You think the OP should instead use their own title?
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.
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.
People are way overreacting to this. This decision was 100% about a federal statute. Unaffected are the MANY, MANY state and local laws preventing state and local government employees from taking gifts.
Edit: for y’all downvoters, even the linked article states
In any event, the decision in *Snyder *is narrow. It does not rule that Congress could not ban gratuities. It simply rules that this particular statute only reaches bribes.
What state's jurisdiction covers DC?
This case isn’t about a fed, it’s a local official.
There are other rules governing most federal employees. This is only one specific federal criminal law.
