How many decades will it take to undo the damage done by this court?
Court known for taking bribes decides bribes are ok
- Thread starter BelemNole
- Start date
The absolute best (and presumably unbeknownst to the OP) part of this post is the fact that the opinion was premised on the distinction between bribes and gratuities.
lol, of course you’re here to defend it. It wasn’t a bribe, I postdated the check!!!
Actually, I'm perfectly fine attacking it, as long as not through ignorance, and preferably by more than just a thread title.
(For my money, my problems start with the unduly narrow construction of gratuities, simply as a bribe in arrears. It's actually broader than that, which on the one hand both explains why the existing federal sentencing distinctions noted by the court make sense, but on the other, do sort of support why you wouldn't federalize a single sentencing standard involving state officials. It's about as clear as the distinction between a facilitation payment under the FCPA and an impermissible bribe.)
Right, it worked for 40 years until the court who is know for bribes takes a swing at it. That mayor should be in prison.
Not sure what you are talking about. Any articles or attachments you can provide regarding this topic?
Well, not exactly. until a defendant asserted a defense. Maybe he should be in prison, but maybe Clarence Earl Gideon should have been too, right?
Short version: Belem doesn't like outcome or (more importantly) the Court, and thus insists that there is absolutely no conceivable construction of the statutory text to support the opinion, though that's sort of what the opinion focuses on exclusively.
This is a
And all this talk of bootlegging? What’s bootlegging? On the boat, it’s bootlegging. On Lake Shore Drive it’s hospitality.
It was convenient the Court laid out the process to not be convicted: no explicit quid pro quo, politician takes an action, receives gratuity after = all good.
And all this talk of bootlegging? What’s bootlegging? On the boat, it’s bootlegging. On Lake Shore Drive it’s hospitality.
It was convenient the Court laid out the process to not be convicted: no explicit quid pro quo, politician takes an action, receives gratuity after = all good.
That theory works other than the whole problem with the statutory text around the bribery part including "soliciting" , agreeing, and corruptly. Front end Winks actually do count. But if you really want to tag 'intent to influence/access,' there was a certain foundation some years ago that got a TON of donations.
Maybe he should be in prison?? Lmfao
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.
Tell me you don't understand the ruling without telling me you don't the ruling.
This is 100% on Congress
This is 100% on Congress
You don’t seem to get the point. I get the jury convicted him. Under erroneous jury instructions apparently. Prosecute him under state law. Problem solved.
No quid pro quo. Just gratuities after the fact if the politician does the thing you want.
Escorts aren’t prostitutes.
Escorts aren’t prostitutes.
I get the point. The point is that you are worse than the morons on this board because you’re not stupid. But you’ll support anything these radicals on the court do because of religion. Which right wing legal groups do you belong to? Be honest.
Read all the words my friend. As I said, I think this starts from a fallacious dichotomy.
But the broader point is this: much as you might think to the contrary, there are in fact two very legitimate sets of legal arguments for pretty much every case that goes to the court. It’s ok to choose one — after all, they have to — but I start from a position of respecting the legitimacy of the arguments of people whose lives are on the line in one way or another
This is a nuanced and thoughtful post. Let's not ruin it by pretending $4 million dollars in "gratuities", or fishing junkets random citizens don't get to go on, doesn't corrupt a judge.
To the main point, no public official should accept anything more valuable than a $50 meal as a gratuity, or bribe, or whatever you want to call it. Corruption is not as endemic in the US as in other countries, but, this ruling and the inability of legislatures to craft laws against corruption is troubling.
Exactly. It’s a reward. It’s not a bribe.
18 USC 666 doesn’t say anything about rewards, except in the text.
Last edited:
Wait what? This ruling doesn’t affect legislatures ability to do anything at all in this area. It’s a simple statutory construction case, not a constitutional one.
It’s truly tortured reasoning to invalidate a portion of a law because they don’t like Congress regulating state workers.
“I’m a textualist. Here are my six reasons for interpreting the statute this way…”
it’s actually very ordinary legal textual analysis, and if something’s unspoken here it is as gorsuch said the rule of lenity.
Either way congress can create a 201c mirror in 666.
Because otherwise how will state employees know that they’re not allowed to buy unwanted goods with taxpayer money and then ask for kickbacks?
Blah blah blah. Tell us which group. You’ve been around long enough, lay your cards out. Hell I knew you would be the first to reply like I knew our old Russian stooge would be the first to reply to any post that mentioned Putin. Except your bat signal is Alito.
Actually Alito is my second least favorite justice up there. (And of course kav wrote the opinion).
So the Biden Crime family isn't really a crime family now and the investigations can end. Great!
Kav must have been drinking a lot of beer when he wrote it.🍻
Actually this decision is not unexpected. An overriding modus operandi of the Roberts court is that unless it is said explicitly its not factor. Such as in this case nobody involved said "I am bribing you" or I want a bribe to do this". Therefore its not a bribe.
I like when the HoRT lawyers argue.
It’s like Iowa Law and Order. Who’s Jack McCoy?!
It’s like Iowa Law and Order. Who’s Jack McCoy?!
More importantly, who is the Abbie Carmichael or Claire Kincade of HORT?
I would like something more explicit, like, I am crime-ing.
The ruling needs to follow the law. If the law is flawed, the ruling shouldn't be blamed. We say we don't want activist judges making up laws, right?!
It matches our congress known for insider trading being ok with them and only them being allowed to inside trade! We are consistent of nothing else.
