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.”
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’.
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.
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.
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.
No see the first one is a bribe, the second one is a job. I’m paying you for your time! /s
That was actually the argument made by the official in question. Called it a “consulting fee”.
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
Your comment is nonsensical. Format that shit. And wtf, are you saying Judge Jackson is corrupt as well? You are making no sense.
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. :)
