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.
And not a single one of us can or will do anything about it.
There is no process or procedure that can undo these people. The system has failed us.
Historically that's not true. We have had disastrous governments and Supreme Courts in the past, and yet the country somehow survived. It's just that they do so much damage while they're around.
And just because things held together in the past is no guarantee that they will hold together in the future.
Rather than saying that the system has failed us, I think it's more accurate to say that the system has been failing the vast majority of Americans for many years.
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.
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
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:
statute text
(a) Whoever, if the circumstance described in subsection (b) of this section exists—
(1) being an agent of an organization, or of a State, local, or Indian tribal government, or any agency thereof—
(A) embezzles, steals, obtains by fraud, or otherwise without authority knowingly converts to the use of any person other than the rightful owner or intentionally misapplies, property that—
(i) is valued at $5,000 or more, and
(ii) is owned by, or is under the care, custody, or control of such organization, government, or agency; or
(B) corruptly solicits or demands for the benefit of any person, or accepts or agrees to accept, anything of value from any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded in connection with any business, transaction, or series of transactions of such organization, government, or agency involving any thing of value of $5,000 or more; or
(2) corruptly gives, offers, or agrees to give anything of value to any person, with intent to influence or reward an agent of an organization or of a State, local or Indian tribal government, or any agency thereof, in connection with any business, transaction, or series of transactions of such organization, government, or agency involving anything of value of $5,000 or more;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
(b) The circumstance referred to in subsection (a) of this section is that the organization, government, or agency receives, in any one year period, benefits in excess of $10,000 under a Federal program involving a grant, contract, subsidy, loan, guarantee, insurance, or other form of Federal assistance.
(c) This section does not apply to bona fide salary, wages, fees, or other compensation paid, or expenses paid or reimbursed, in the usual course of business.
definitions
(d) As used in this section—
(1) the term “agent” means a person authorized to act on behalf of another person or a government and, in the case of an organization or government, includes a servant or employee, and a partner, director, officer, manager, and representative;
(2) the term “government agency” means a subdivision of the executive, legislative, judicial, or other branch of government, including a department, independent establishment, commission, administration, authority, board, and bureau, and a corporation or other legal entity established, and subject to control, by a government or governments for the execution of a governmental or intergovernmental program;
(3) the term “local” means of or pertaining to a political subdivision within a State;
(4) the term “State” includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States; and
(5) the term “in any one-year period” means a continuous period that commences no earlier than twelve months before the commission of the offense or that ends no later than twelve months after the commission of the offense. Such period may include time both before and after the commission of the offense.
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.
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.
Whelp, I'd say we had a good run, but, well...
Shit.
We had a run.
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.
That's cute we should charge them for bribery anyway. Fuck it.
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.