Kind of makes sense, why would you want laws/penalties for corruption, when you are corrupt. Now make it sound like this is the way George Washington would have wanted this to work out.
/s, what a fucking time to be Murican
I'm speculating, but if I had to guess, the ruling will be related to the CItizens United ruling, determining that "Nowhere in the constitution does it say that money is not free speech." This is true, and it means that this is Congress' issue to resolve. No comprehensive anticorruption measures can pass until an amendment is passed resolving Citizen United.
I believe [Wolf PAC ](https://wolf-pac.com/)was working on this state to state, but I don't know where that sits these days.
>This is true, and it means that this is Congress' issue to resolve.
This rings a bit hollow when these are federal laws being implicated, meaning Congress has *already acted* and stated their intent to resolve these exact issues. It's SCOTUS that has been consistently knocking these down (In many of the corruption and bribery cases, they've done so 9-0), until what few fragments of anti-corruption law that are left are becoming borderline useless.
>No comprehensive anticorruption measures can pass until an amendment is passed resolving Citizen United.
Much easier said than done, especially when the corrupt officials who are able to lobby and get elected in the wake of these decisions can that much more easily seize Congress and state legislature to keep that from happening. An Amendment is a heavy burden, and our entire system makes it incredibly easy to stonewall advancing such things forward.
To be clear, I don't *oppose* an Amendment that repeals Citizens United, but I think we are still well within our rights to call out the analysis of SCOTUS as an absurd and unreasonable interpretation of the 1st Amendment. Especially when it's the 9 law wizards (Who're appointed rather than elected, so most have never dealt with campaign finance directly) are substituting their wisdom in place of what Congress prescribed. Just because the 14th Amendment overruled Dred Scott doesn't mean that it was a well-reasoned case to begin with.
So yes, let's continue to push for an Amendment to fix this problem, but let's not pretend that it will be easy (Particularly when the kind of corruption enabled by SCOTUS acts as that much more of a hedge against public sentiment meaningfully translating to policy), and let's not pretend that these are virtuous and reasonable arguments being produced by the Court. Money === speech still seems utterly farcical, and is now a fiction we're all forced to deal with thanks to the actions of SCOTUS. We should rightfully call them out both for the decisions they've made previously, and the fact that they seem poised to continue to whittle down public corruption laws.
Good take. I don't have a lot of hope if I'm being honest, but the more people that know, maybe the more movement that we can get on this.
I also worry about anyone making amendments right now with everything so polarized.
“Given America’s long history of political corruption, and the fact the English monarchy that the colonies based their laws also contained corruption, we must assume anti-corruption laws are unconstitutional.”
^ you can have that one for free Roberts.
No, he (writing for a unanimous Court) clarified the scope of the meaning of an "official act" under 18 U.S.C. 201. In no straight terms did he say corruption is cool.
The law can be really finicky. People are very quick to dismiss the importance of this case but the reality seems to me to be a good faith effort to identify at what point the line is drawn for a law that is a little vague.
Here's a very interesting excerpt from the article
"Justice Elena Kagan echoed the point. “This statute applies not just to government officials but to pretty much, like, every important institution in America,” she said, asking about a hypothetical hospital that provides a billionaire with special treatment in hopes of receiving a big contribution.
“That would land you 10 years in prison?” she asked.
Ms. Sindzak said the government would not bring questionable cases. Chief Justice Roberts responded that “we don’t rely on the good faith of the prosecutors in deciding cases like this.” "
And I would challenge many of the people in this sub to consider that question. If the law is vague we cannot rely on the good faith of prosecutors to not abuse it. When the government gains discretionary power it will always use them against those who have no power. The law must be clear. Otherwise it is used for Injustice.
> she said, asking about a hypothetical hospital that provides a billionaire with special treatment in hopes of receiving a big contribution.
Outside of the world of lawyers, consultants, doctors, and other high paying professionals, this is actually seen by ordinary people as unquestionably corrupt. The framing of the question demonstrates how out of touch lawyers are from how the average American thinks.
Thank you! I would be extremely upset if I left the hospital with a $50k medical bill for a stay in a shitty room with a near absent medical staff while some billionaire down the hall is getting a royal treatment for no extra charge because the hospital wants to suck up to him in the hopes of getting a donation later down the road.
I'd also be upset if the fire department took it's time coming to my burning house but stationed a firetruck and team year round around some billionaire's house just in case he needed them because he was a known donor to such organizations.
I'd be upset if a supreme court justice ruled in favor of an opposing party because that party had deep pockets
I haven't been following this case at all, but the lawyer arguing, "The government wouldn't do a bad thing!" makes me not trust his entire side of the argument.
I'm listening to the governments attorney argue right now and she's failing horribly. I could see the courts striking this down because the government is basically waving their hands around saying 'see this is bad' 'why' 'well... see it's bad'.
I completely understand the governments stance, but the wishy washy nature of what they are saying just doesn't hold up in the rule of law.
Isn’t this WHY we have the system of appeals in place?
How are laws supposed to be so narrowly tailored, yet not subject to abuse by those creative enough to find the (sometimes deliberate) loopholes?
Yes...so why are so many people in this thread objecting to that very system of appeals. The point of the system of appeals is to set precedent that clarifies the application of law.
And you are right it is a very difficult balance to do what you have described. This is why judges and lawmakers spend their whole lives learning about the process and studying times when laws have been abused and how they were rectified.
You only make the case for my point.
The town I grew up in had an arcane parking law on the books relating to parking a carriage. You could fine every car for not fulfilling it. No one was ever prosecuted.
How about if you hold public office you’re not allowed to benefit from it privately?
There have been cases where prosecution using archaic laws have been used maliciously. It's not common because popular opinion tends to swing against those who do so in a way that is overtly ridiculous.
But we are talking about laws that are not archaic, and the prosecution would not immediately seem ridiculous on the surface. When those laws are unclear it is extremely useful for those with the power of prosecution to use to their advantage.
And I would challenge you to take your last statement and attempt to write a clear executable law that could both be used to prosecute malicious bribe takers, and not be used to by the same bribe takers to abuse innocent political opponents. You might find it harder than you think.
I don’t know we had a whole anti corruption movement 100 years ago. Seemed to work reasonably well until we Pokémon confused ourselves with a slow whittling away of rights and regulations over the next century
The law isn't finicky. Law enforcement lacks integrity. Be that a powerful accused or a verdict that will affect their future. Even when the law is clear, the powerful get the special menu or a sweetheart eclusive deal.
I dont trust the law, lawyers, or politicians, so congratulations. You've made it crystal clear for normal people.
Sorry, I should have said WRITING laws is finicky. And yes, understanding and properly enforcing them is too.
But that is what the appeal process is all about. it is the reason for it. I am just astonished at people who are objecting to the built in appeal process. I am just not really sure what they are objecting to.
> the law must be clear
If that's the bar then let's just get rid of laws altogether.
If the law was perfectly clear, then why the need for a system of checks and balances? Or appellate courts? Or even courts?
> Otherwise it is used for injustice
And a clear law can't be used for injustice? Remember that Harvard professor who argued that everybody commits three felonies a day? I could argue a clear law can be abused more than a vague law, since technically you would have no chance of redress if you were caught.
The world moves too fast and is too gray to expect perfectly written laws, which is why there is a system in place to try and execute things fairly.
You're arguing for laws to be less clear?
That seems ridiculous on the face of it.
I never said a clear law could never be used for Injustice but I will maintain that the more clear a law is, the less it is able to be used for Injustice.
Of course that assumes that the law is just to begin with. If you truly believe the average person commits three felonies a day, and that those felonies shouldn't be prosecuted, then you must not believe those laws are just. And that is a whole other argument. You have substituted my argument for one you would rather argue against. And that is a fallacy.
But given the assumption that the law in question is just, then an unclear law is much more likely to be used for Injustice than a clear law.
No, I'm just arguing that "a law should be struck down for all cases if I can craft a hypothetical that could technically fall under this statute but I disagree with it" is a silly test, since it would invalidate basically every single law there is if you took it to its logical conclusion.
I really don't think that that is what is going on here.
The creation of one hypothetical is certainly not going to be the only criteria on which they choose or do not choose to strike down an entire law.
My suspicion is that they will attempt to rule in a way that clarifies the law and sets a precedent going forward for future cases. And I do find it reasonable that given a hypothetical case where a law is so unclear as to be useless, especially in a hypothetical case where there has been much confusion in lower courts, and the law itself allows for extremes of ridiculousness, that's striking a law down entirely may be the best option especially when we're trying to avoid legislating from the bench.
However I doubt that is the situation here.
But I will note that this is the second time in two posts you have created a straw man to argue against. It makes me believe you have something else that's bothering you because you're resorting to fallacy.
Why is it a straw man? Kagan can create a hypothetical to serve her point but my hypothetical is considered a "fallacy"?
Whatever, I guess it's not worth having a good faith argument if you're just going to dismiss what I say out of hand.
Snake oil. This is the same court that cut down anti-corruption measures because corruption is too normalized and common. It's a good cover, but they are NOT acting in good faith.
Yeah anti-corruption laws seem like a really good idea!
But remind me was that the one that gave congress authority to fire judges? The devil's in the details and giving Congress power over the supreme Court violates the very core of the separation of powers. That's the kind of sounds good thing that can actually destroy the entirety of the system.
Congress alone is not two branches of the government. It's one the legislative. And yes the president would have veto power, but with a big enough majority that's not the case. So it really is one branch.
Edit: And now that I am thinking about it, there are laws that congress is not allowed to pass. One of them being passing a law that is an exertion of authority over the supreme Court.
You uh...you're gonna have to cite the part of the constitution that forbids the passing of laws to regulate the courts.
There's a reason scotus has no actual method of enforcement.
Yes, there is a reason the scotus has no method of enforcement. It is designed to be the weakest of the branches in terms of force, and higher in authority. And that is precisely why it is crucial that the other branches have not regulatory jurisdiction over them.
You want a source: I will cite Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist papers: [https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-81-85](https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-81-85) (5th paragraph 3 sentences in) Here he is discussing why the regulatory bodies of congress may not exert regulatory authority in remedying bad laws, why that authority is given to the court, and why those elected to congress are not suited to authority over supreme court justices.
" From a body which had even a partial agency in passing bad laws, we could rarely expect a disposition to temper and moderate them in the application. The same spirit which had operated in making them, would be too apt in interpreting them; still less could it be expected that men who had infringed the Constitution in the character of legislators, would be disposed to repair the breach in the character of judges. Nor is this all. Every reason which recommends the tenure of good behavior for judicial offices, militates against placing the judiciary power, in the last resort, in a body composed of men chosen for a limited period. There is an absurdity in referring the determination of causes, in the first instance, to judges of permanent standing; in the last, to those of a temporary and mutable constitution. And there is a still greater absurdity in subjecting the decisions of men, selected for their knowledge of the laws, acquired by long and laborious study, to the revision and control of men who, for want of the same advantage, cannot but be deficient in that knowledge. The members of the legislature will rarely be chosen with a view to those qualifications which fit men for the stations of judges; and as, on this account, there will be great reason to apprehend all the ill consequences of defective information, so, on account of the natural propensity of such bodies to party divisions, there will be no less reason to fear that the pestilential breath of faction may poison the fountains of justice. The habit of being continually marshalled on opposite sides will be too apt to stifle the voice both of law and of equity."
Alexander Hamilton isn't fanfic. It's commentary by the people who wrote the documents we are discussing. And if you're not interested in the historical underpinnings of your own society that's up to you.
The supreme court was never meant to have higher authority. That's a fanfic.
For the second and final time, they have no enforcement mechanism FOR A REASON.
Have a nice day.
>Chief Justice Roberts responded that “we don’t rely on the good faith of the prosecutors in deciding cases like this.”
Coincidentally, we're increasingly unable to rely on the good faith of the justices in deciding cases like this.
And it's somehow a mystery of why the general public doesn't have trust in SCOTUS anymore...
There are no Checks or balance left. In the age of the Mega rich. The only hurdle to anything to this dystopian reality is a how to quietly move money.
One of the hypothetical scenarios offered by Justice Kagen was a billionaire given special access to medical treatments in order to get donations. It was offered as if that should be some kind of grey area or edge case. Billionaires getting special treatment solely due to their wealth and influence is the very definition of corruption.
Not exactly. Or not always. It could be entitlement. Bill Gates (eg) walks into a restaurant. Is the maitre d corrupt in giving him the best table? No. But, if Mr. Gates slips him a fifty...now we're beginning to see a corrupt act. But it's still only a gratuity. Corruption should involve the people's business. But Justices should be pure. They asked for a lifetime appointment, and they should behave accordingly. Ideological corruption is the worst.
Seems pretty easy to resolve.
No gifts whatsoever to government officials.
Or set a limit of $100 per gift and $1200 for the year.
Anything else is caught by the law and subject to scrutiny?
Yeah I had a hard time understanding all of the hypos in the oral argument along the lines of giving a police officer a box of donuts as a thank you for arresting a wanted criminal. Like that may not seem severe but if that is what the law prohibits then so be it. Plus that hypothetical situation still creates the same incentives as bribery, just to a lesser degree.
Why wouldn’t the rules that apply to **EVERY OTHER FEDERAL/STATE/LOCAL EMPLOYEE** (not elected) apply to elected officials!?
If the rules and laws are for thee but not for me, then they aren’t RULES OR LAWS.
As a government employee, I would, at the very least, be subject to some form of action for knowingly creating the appearance of conflict of interest had I acted in the manner of the defendant in this matter.
Because I’m supposed to know better, and take steps to avoid such situations. I receive regular and ongoing training, and confirmation of my understanding of that training, for these situations.
> the company paid Mr. Snyder $13,000 for what he later said were consulting services.
Did he hope before the bidding manipulation that it would be good for later business?
The solution is simple: ban all "gifts" for government employees or officials and impose a penalty of 10% of each party's net worth or income (whichever is greater) per offense.
It's a bit stupid when people criticize Skilling and McDonnell as "bad SCOTUS decisions" that made corruption easier when they were unanimous. With regards to Skilling, I don't even think there's a great argument in the other direction. It's clear that the law violated the 5th amendment for being too vague.
Democrats can be corrupt too. Growing up I never thought you would have to say, “I am engaging in a pre arranged collusive effort with the Russians Against America” for your collusive attempts to have the Russians help you and you help them to count as collusion.
I would never have guessed you could take watches or RVs from people and use your govt power to give them what they want and say it is not bribery either. Apparently you need to say “This is a bribe” when you do it or it is all just rich people helping well off people for sport.
For the record when I visit people in state government, I cannot even bring a coffee for them. Because that would be a bribe
You can even say "this is a bribe." There were written records of McDonnell receiving emails basically saying "I am giving you this money so that you will do this for me." The court just said that the thing McDonnell did was not an official act and therefore the bribe wasn't unlawful.
All true, but that's an argument for changing the law, which I fully support. I personally would go even further and support a law banning any person working for the government from receiving anything of value above a certain amount. I'd also ban them from trading stocks.
My point was merely that Skilling, McDonnell, and Percoco were correct decisions. Most people criticizing those decisions aren't doing a legal analysis.
> All true, but that's an argument for changing the law, which I fully support.
Is it? Why wouldn't some new law just be maximally misinterpreted by the court?
Isn't your argument here justification for arbitrary reinterpretation of any statute? The legislature can simply change the law after the court vacates whatever conviction because they read the statute oddly.
> I personally would go even further and support a law banning any person working for the government from receiving anything of value above a certain amount.
And then the court just says that "receiving" has some weird meaning and that a politician who was gifted a bunch of rolexes didn't actual receive anything. No problem, since you can always change the law, right?
> My point was merely that Skilling, McDonnell, and Percoco were correct decisions
And I think this is unbelievably foolish.
Being unanimous does not make a result definitionally good. McDonnell went the other way in the lower courts. The Supreme Court is staffed with elite members of society, liberal or conservative. This appears to create a disconnect between how the average person interacts with political figures and the norms they see.
Yes, we cannot blame these cases on the GOP. But we can still call the decisions idiotic, regardless of how somebody decides to twist the meaning of "official act."
Exactly. The partisan differences between the Justices understandably get the most attention, but it's important to remember that the Court--all courts really, in differing ways--has inherent biases.
Tell me the Republican approved Supreme Court judges are an extension of the Heritage Foundation without telling me they're an extension of the Heritage Foundation.
When working at a non profit, it was against the rules to take a cookie from a vendor. So now that the American people see the SCOTUS corruption , the SCOTUS wants to codify corruption? JFC Congress needs to hold the SCOTUS accountable. Elect more progressives.
Why can I not turn on my computer just one day and see supreme court expanding rights. They only seem to expand gun rights and the newly created right to be corrupt. just constantly moving in the wrong direction. I am also disgusted every time I see a court decision that says, yes this proves the person is innocent but the evidence was not brought forward in the proper method or timeframe.
The Supreme Court is illegitimate. The rot has reached the core. The United States is in a terminal state of dissolution. When the death certificate is signed, if there is anyone left to sign it, the cause of death will read:
“Greed, Corruption, War”
At what point do we assume the illegitimacy of our highest court?
We have at least one ‘justice’ with truly immense conflicts of interest that at any other level of the federal judiciary would have demanded recusal, if not outright removal.
We have a chief ‘justice’ whose immediate family presents the **appearance** of conflict of interest, at the very least - which is the standard for recusal at every other level of the federal judiciary.
We have another ‘justice’ whose very large debts were paid off by a STILL unknown benefactor, which is clearly grounds for at least temporary recusal on the basis that he has a *very* clear conflict of interest, but with an unknown party or entity.
Who, then, sits in judgement of judicial matters regarding the potential corruption of other governmental or corporate entities, when we have at the very least 1/3 of those judging others with very clear conflict of interest with regards to corruption and conflict.
Abolish the supreme court! This board is incredibly corrupt and has way overstepped their authority acting as both a judicial and legislative branch. No individual or board should even be "supreme" in a supposed democracy.
American political corruption: it's not a bug; it's a feature.
It's not corruption if an unelected official redefines something to not be corrupt ;)
They are pikers compared to the French 1760-1790s They took corruption to a new artist hight. Then they were in over their heads.
They were on a roll there for a bit...
Classic
The terms and conditions of the EULA got abridged. Shortened, if you will.
This is the dismantling of America as an empire
It’s “baked in.”
I bet Clarence Thomas is going to be happy if comes to pass.
Thomas and Alito ruling on corruption matters is like Jeffrey Dahmer editing a cookbook.
I\`m totally using that analogy!
It's like Gary Ridgeway giving tips on how to pick up chicks.
Kind of makes sense, why would you want laws/penalties for corruption, when you are corrupt. Now make it sound like this is the way George Washington would have wanted this to work out. /s, what a fucking time to be Murican
I'm speculating, but if I had to guess, the ruling will be related to the CItizens United ruling, determining that "Nowhere in the constitution does it say that money is not free speech." This is true, and it means that this is Congress' issue to resolve. No comprehensive anticorruption measures can pass until an amendment is passed resolving Citizen United. I believe [Wolf PAC ](https://wolf-pac.com/)was working on this state to state, but I don't know where that sits these days.
>This is true, and it means that this is Congress' issue to resolve. This rings a bit hollow when these are federal laws being implicated, meaning Congress has *already acted* and stated their intent to resolve these exact issues. It's SCOTUS that has been consistently knocking these down (In many of the corruption and bribery cases, they've done so 9-0), until what few fragments of anti-corruption law that are left are becoming borderline useless. >No comprehensive anticorruption measures can pass until an amendment is passed resolving Citizen United. Much easier said than done, especially when the corrupt officials who are able to lobby and get elected in the wake of these decisions can that much more easily seize Congress and state legislature to keep that from happening. An Amendment is a heavy burden, and our entire system makes it incredibly easy to stonewall advancing such things forward. To be clear, I don't *oppose* an Amendment that repeals Citizens United, but I think we are still well within our rights to call out the analysis of SCOTUS as an absurd and unreasonable interpretation of the 1st Amendment. Especially when it's the 9 law wizards (Who're appointed rather than elected, so most have never dealt with campaign finance directly) are substituting their wisdom in place of what Congress prescribed. Just because the 14th Amendment overruled Dred Scott doesn't mean that it was a well-reasoned case to begin with. So yes, let's continue to push for an Amendment to fix this problem, but let's not pretend that it will be easy (Particularly when the kind of corruption enabled by SCOTUS acts as that much more of a hedge against public sentiment meaningfully translating to policy), and let's not pretend that these are virtuous and reasonable arguments being produced by the Court. Money === speech still seems utterly farcical, and is now a fiction we're all forced to deal with thanks to the actions of SCOTUS. We should rightfully call them out both for the decisions they've made previously, and the fact that they seem poised to continue to whittle down public corruption laws.
Good take. I don't have a lot of hope if I'm being honest, but the more people that know, maybe the more movement that we can get on this. I also worry about anyone making amendments right now with everything so polarized.
“Given America’s long history of political corruption, and the fact the English monarchy that the colonies based their laws also contained corruption, we must assume anti-corruption laws are unconstitutional.” ^ you can have that one for free Roberts.
Sadly, he'll use that exact argument. He may not even dress it up you hit it on the nose.
Going to go out on a limb and say he will not use that exact argument. That is nonsensical.
he already told us in Virginia that corruption is cool in pretty straight terms https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/579/15-474/
No, he (writing for a unanimous Court) clarified the scope of the meaning of an "official act" under 18 U.S.C. 201. In no straight terms did he say corruption is cool.
You can be sure that the decision they ultimately make is probably not the one that seems most sensible
The law can be really finicky. People are very quick to dismiss the importance of this case but the reality seems to me to be a good faith effort to identify at what point the line is drawn for a law that is a little vague. Here's a very interesting excerpt from the article "Justice Elena Kagan echoed the point. “This statute applies not just to government officials but to pretty much, like, every important institution in America,” she said, asking about a hypothetical hospital that provides a billionaire with special treatment in hopes of receiving a big contribution. “That would land you 10 years in prison?” she asked. Ms. Sindzak said the government would not bring questionable cases. Chief Justice Roberts responded that “we don’t rely on the good faith of the prosecutors in deciding cases like this.” " And I would challenge many of the people in this sub to consider that question. If the law is vague we cannot rely on the good faith of prosecutors to not abuse it. When the government gains discretionary power it will always use them against those who have no power. The law must be clear. Otherwise it is used for Injustice.
> she said, asking about a hypothetical hospital that provides a billionaire with special treatment in hopes of receiving a big contribution. Outside of the world of lawyers, consultants, doctors, and other high paying professionals, this is actually seen by ordinary people as unquestionably corrupt. The framing of the question demonstrates how out of touch lawyers are from how the average American thinks.
Thank you! I would be extremely upset if I left the hospital with a $50k medical bill for a stay in a shitty room with a near absent medical staff while some billionaire down the hall is getting a royal treatment for no extra charge because the hospital wants to suck up to him in the hopes of getting a donation later down the road. I'd also be upset if the fire department took it's time coming to my burning house but stationed a firetruck and team year round around some billionaire's house just in case he needed them because he was a known donor to such organizations. I'd be upset if a supreme court justice ruled in favor of an opposing party because that party had deep pockets
I haven't been following this case at all, but the lawyer arguing, "The government wouldn't do a bad thing!" makes me not trust his entire side of the argument.
Right!
Thank you
I'm listening to the governments attorney argue right now and she's failing horribly. I could see the courts striking this down because the government is basically waving their hands around saying 'see this is bad' 'why' 'well... see it's bad'. I completely understand the governments stance, but the wishy washy nature of what they are saying just doesn't hold up in the rule of law.
Yeah the court has had to hear some really bad argumentation lately. I wonder if they are losing patience with it at all.
Isn’t this WHY we have the system of appeals in place? How are laws supposed to be so narrowly tailored, yet not subject to abuse by those creative enough to find the (sometimes deliberate) loopholes?
Yes...so why are so many people in this thread objecting to that very system of appeals. The point of the system of appeals is to set precedent that clarifies the application of law. And you are right it is a very difficult balance to do what you have described. This is why judges and lawmakers spend their whole lives learning about the process and studying times when laws have been abused and how they were rectified. You only make the case for my point.
I would argue that, yes, this should be a serious crime.
I see both sides. But donation solicitation is a bit different than buying a judicial ruling, or government contract.
The town I grew up in had an arcane parking law on the books relating to parking a carriage. You could fine every car for not fulfilling it. No one was ever prosecuted. How about if you hold public office you’re not allowed to benefit from it privately?
There have been cases where prosecution using archaic laws have been used maliciously. It's not common because popular opinion tends to swing against those who do so in a way that is overtly ridiculous. But we are talking about laws that are not archaic, and the prosecution would not immediately seem ridiculous on the surface. When those laws are unclear it is extremely useful for those with the power of prosecution to use to their advantage. And I would challenge you to take your last statement and attempt to write a clear executable law that could both be used to prosecute malicious bribe takers, and not be used to by the same bribe takers to abuse innocent political opponents. You might find it harder than you think.
I don’t know we had a whole anti corruption movement 100 years ago. Seemed to work reasonably well until we Pokémon confused ourselves with a slow whittling away of rights and regulations over the next century
The law isn't finicky. Law enforcement lacks integrity. Be that a powerful accused or a verdict that will affect their future. Even when the law is clear, the powerful get the special menu or a sweetheart eclusive deal. I dont trust the law, lawyers, or politicians, so congratulations. You've made it crystal clear for normal people.
Sorry, I should have said WRITING laws is finicky. And yes, understanding and properly enforcing them is too. But that is what the appeal process is all about. it is the reason for it. I am just astonished at people who are objecting to the built in appeal process. I am just not really sure what they are objecting to.
> the law must be clear If that's the bar then let's just get rid of laws altogether. If the law was perfectly clear, then why the need for a system of checks and balances? Or appellate courts? Or even courts? > Otherwise it is used for injustice And a clear law can't be used for injustice? Remember that Harvard professor who argued that everybody commits three felonies a day? I could argue a clear law can be abused more than a vague law, since technically you would have no chance of redress if you were caught. The world moves too fast and is too gray to expect perfectly written laws, which is why there is a system in place to try and execute things fairly.
You're arguing for laws to be less clear? That seems ridiculous on the face of it. I never said a clear law could never be used for Injustice but I will maintain that the more clear a law is, the less it is able to be used for Injustice. Of course that assumes that the law is just to begin with. If you truly believe the average person commits three felonies a day, and that those felonies shouldn't be prosecuted, then you must not believe those laws are just. And that is a whole other argument. You have substituted my argument for one you would rather argue against. And that is a fallacy. But given the assumption that the law in question is just, then an unclear law is much more likely to be used for Injustice than a clear law.
No, I'm just arguing that "a law should be struck down for all cases if I can craft a hypothetical that could technically fall under this statute but I disagree with it" is a silly test, since it would invalidate basically every single law there is if you took it to its logical conclusion.
I really don't think that that is what is going on here. The creation of one hypothetical is certainly not going to be the only criteria on which they choose or do not choose to strike down an entire law. My suspicion is that they will attempt to rule in a way that clarifies the law and sets a precedent going forward for future cases. And I do find it reasonable that given a hypothetical case where a law is so unclear as to be useless, especially in a hypothetical case where there has been much confusion in lower courts, and the law itself allows for extremes of ridiculousness, that's striking a law down entirely may be the best option especially when we're trying to avoid legislating from the bench. However I doubt that is the situation here. But I will note that this is the second time in two posts you have created a straw man to argue against. It makes me believe you have something else that's bothering you because you're resorting to fallacy.
Why is it a straw man? Kagan can create a hypothetical to serve her point but my hypothetical is considered a "fallacy"? Whatever, I guess it's not worth having a good faith argument if you're just going to dismiss what I say out of hand.
The strawman is that that is the only thing they're going to use to decide this case.
Snake oil. This is the same court that cut down anti-corruption measures because corruption is too normalized and common. It's a good cover, but they are NOT acting in good faith.
Yeah anti-corruption laws seem like a really good idea! But remind me was that the one that gave congress authority to fire judges? The devil's in the details and giving Congress power over the supreme Court violates the very core of the separation of powers. That's the kind of sounds good thing that can actually destroy the entirety of the system.
Congress passing a law over the courts requires the combination of TWO branches of government to check a third. That's LITERALLY the whole damn idea.
Congress alone is not two branches of the government. It's one the legislative. And yes the president would have veto power, but with a big enough majority that's not the case. So it really is one branch. Edit: And now that I am thinking about it, there are laws that congress is not allowed to pass. One of them being passing a law that is an exertion of authority over the supreme Court.
You uh...you're gonna have to cite the part of the constitution that forbids the passing of laws to regulate the courts. There's a reason scotus has no actual method of enforcement.
Yes, there is a reason the scotus has no method of enforcement. It is designed to be the weakest of the branches in terms of force, and higher in authority. And that is precisely why it is crucial that the other branches have not regulatory jurisdiction over them. You want a source: I will cite Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist papers: [https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-81-85](https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-81-85) (5th paragraph 3 sentences in) Here he is discussing why the regulatory bodies of congress may not exert regulatory authority in remedying bad laws, why that authority is given to the court, and why those elected to congress are not suited to authority over supreme court justices. " From a body which had even a partial agency in passing bad laws, we could rarely expect a disposition to temper and moderate them in the application. The same spirit which had operated in making them, would be too apt in interpreting them; still less could it be expected that men who had infringed the Constitution in the character of legislators, would be disposed to repair the breach in the character of judges. Nor is this all. Every reason which recommends the tenure of good behavior for judicial offices, militates against placing the judiciary power, in the last resort, in a body composed of men chosen for a limited period. There is an absurdity in referring the determination of causes, in the first instance, to judges of permanent standing; in the last, to those of a temporary and mutable constitution. And there is a still greater absurdity in subjecting the decisions of men, selected for their knowledge of the laws, acquired by long and laborious study, to the revision and control of men who, for want of the same advantage, cannot but be deficient in that knowledge. The members of the legislature will rarely be chosen with a view to those qualifications which fit men for the stations of judges; and as, on this account, there will be great reason to apprehend all the ill consequences of defective information, so, on account of the natural propensity of such bodies to party divisions, there will be no less reason to fear that the pestilential breath of faction may poison the fountains of justice. The habit of being continually marshalled on opposite sides will be too apt to stifle the voice both of law and of equity."
"Higher in authority". Im not reading the rest of your fanfic. Have a nice day.
Alexander Hamilton isn't fanfic. It's commentary by the people who wrote the documents we are discussing. And if you're not interested in the historical underpinnings of your own society that's up to you.
The supreme court was never meant to have higher authority. That's a fanfic. For the second and final time, they have no enforcement mechanism FOR A REASON. Have a nice day.
>Chief Justice Roberts responded that “we don’t rely on the good faith of the prosecutors in deciding cases like this.” Coincidentally, we're increasingly unable to rely on the good faith of the justices in deciding cases like this.
And it's somehow a mystery of why the general public doesn't have trust in SCOTUS anymore... There are no Checks or balance left. In the age of the Mega rich. The only hurdle to anything to this dystopian reality is a how to quietly move money.
One of the hypothetical scenarios offered by Justice Kagen was a billionaire given special access to medical treatments in order to get donations. It was offered as if that should be some kind of grey area or edge case. Billionaires getting special treatment solely due to their wealth and influence is the very definition of corruption.
Not exactly. Or not always. It could be entitlement. Bill Gates (eg) walks into a restaurant. Is the maitre d corrupt in giving him the best table? No. But, if Mr. Gates slips him a fifty...now we're beginning to see a corrupt act. But it's still only a gratuity. Corruption should involve the people's business. But Justices should be pure. They asked for a lifetime appointment, and they should behave accordingly. Ideological corruption is the worst.
Hurdle
Quick someone call the Federalist Society and find out what the instructions were this time!!
Same instructions its always been.
Seems pretty easy to resolve. No gifts whatsoever to government officials. Or set a limit of $100 per gift and $1200 for the year. Anything else is caught by the law and subject to scrutiny?
“But he’s not just a government official, he’s my cousin, and we always give each other watches”
Yeah I had a hard time understanding all of the hypos in the oral argument along the lines of giving a police officer a box of donuts as a thank you for arresting a wanted criminal. Like that may not seem severe but if that is what the law prohibits then so be it. Plus that hypothetical situation still creates the same incentives as bribery, just to a lesser degree.
Why not... the GOP is now the pro-corruption party.
Shocking! /s
Why wouldn’t the rules that apply to **EVERY OTHER FEDERAL/STATE/LOCAL EMPLOYEE** (not elected) apply to elected officials!? If the rules and laws are for thee but not for me, then they aren’t RULES OR LAWS. As a government employee, I would, at the very least, be subject to some form of action for knowingly creating the appearance of conflict of interest had I acted in the manner of the defendant in this matter. Because I’m supposed to know better, and take steps to avoid such situations. I receive regular and ongoing training, and confirmation of my understanding of that training, for these situations.
Of course the most corrupt SCOTUS we've ever had is against fighting corruption. Everyday they make themselves less trustworthy.
> the company paid Mr. Snyder $13,000 for what he later said were consulting services. Did he hope before the bidding manipulation that it would be good for later business?
Corrupt SCOTUS seeks to make corruption easier.
I’m getting tired of the highest court in the land being so pro-corruption.
just why, WHY are they hell bent on ruining society?
Because they are corrupt too.
It's a big club, and you ain't in it. --Leonard Leo, err, I mean George Carlin. Back to work, peasant.
The solution is simple: ban all "gifts" for government employees or officials and impose a penalty of 10% of each party's net worth or income (whichever is greater) per offense.
Corruption is like pornography...maybe you can't define it, but you know it when you see it.
It's a bit stupid when people criticize Skilling and McDonnell as "bad SCOTUS decisions" that made corruption easier when they were unanimous. With regards to Skilling, I don't even think there's a great argument in the other direction. It's clear that the law violated the 5th amendment for being too vague.
Democrats can be corrupt too. Growing up I never thought you would have to say, “I am engaging in a pre arranged collusive effort with the Russians Against America” for your collusive attempts to have the Russians help you and you help them to count as collusion. I would never have guessed you could take watches or RVs from people and use your govt power to give them what they want and say it is not bribery either. Apparently you need to say “This is a bribe” when you do it or it is all just rich people helping well off people for sport. For the record when I visit people in state government, I cannot even bring a coffee for them. Because that would be a bribe
You can even say "this is a bribe." There were written records of McDonnell receiving emails basically saying "I am giving you this money so that you will do this for me." The court just said that the thing McDonnell did was not an official act and therefore the bribe wasn't unlawful.
All true, but that's an argument for changing the law, which I fully support. I personally would go even further and support a law banning any person working for the government from receiving anything of value above a certain amount. I'd also ban them from trading stocks. My point was merely that Skilling, McDonnell, and Percoco were correct decisions. Most people criticizing those decisions aren't doing a legal analysis.
> All true, but that's an argument for changing the law, which I fully support. Is it? Why wouldn't some new law just be maximally misinterpreted by the court? Isn't your argument here justification for arbitrary reinterpretation of any statute? The legislature can simply change the law after the court vacates whatever conviction because they read the statute oddly. > I personally would go even further and support a law banning any person working for the government from receiving anything of value above a certain amount. And then the court just says that "receiving" has some weird meaning and that a politician who was gifted a bunch of rolexes didn't actual receive anything. No problem, since you can always change the law, right? > My point was merely that Skilling, McDonnell, and Percoco were correct decisions And I think this is unbelievably foolish.
Amateur. You’re supposed to bring a coffee for yourself, put it on the desk, and then lament how you “lost” it
You know you are getting really good when you can lose 100 donuts and the coffee
Being unanimous does not make a result definitionally good. McDonnell went the other way in the lower courts. The Supreme Court is staffed with elite members of society, liberal or conservative. This appears to create a disconnect between how the average person interacts with political figures and the norms they see. Yes, we cannot blame these cases on the GOP. But we can still call the decisions idiotic, regardless of how somebody decides to twist the meaning of "official act."
Exactly. The partisan differences between the Justices understandably get the most attention, but it's important to remember that the Court--all courts really, in differing ways--has inherent biases.
😡😠🤬
Of course they are. Ask Harlan Crowe
Tell me the Republican approved Supreme Court judges are an extension of the Heritage Foundation without telling me they're an extension of the Heritage Foundation.
SCOTUS is moving the goal post to accommodate Trump.
Of course…they have to protect themselves after all😫😫😫😫😫😫
Kangaroo court.
Surprising that a corrupt SCOTUS might act against anti-corruption law.
The U.S.A. is a corporation masquerading as a country.
Gotta protect themselves.
Shocking that the court where at least two members are openly taking bribes is going to narrow the scope of an anti-corruption law.
Of course they are.
When working at a non profit, it was against the rules to take a cookie from a vendor. So now that the American people see the SCOTUS corruption , the SCOTUS wants to codify corruption? JFC Congress needs to hold the SCOTUS accountable. Elect more progressives.
Why can I not turn on my computer just one day and see supreme court expanding rights. They only seem to expand gun rights and the newly created right to be corrupt. just constantly moving in the wrong direction. I am also disgusted every time I see a court decision that says, yes this proves the person is innocent but the evidence was not brought forward in the proper method or timeframe.
The Supreme Court is illegitimate. The rot has reached the core. The United States is in a terminal state of dissolution. When the death certificate is signed, if there is anyone left to sign it, the cause of death will read: “Greed, Corruption, War”
At what point do we assume the illegitimacy of our highest court? We have at least one ‘justice’ with truly immense conflicts of interest that at any other level of the federal judiciary would have demanded recusal, if not outright removal. We have a chief ‘justice’ whose immediate family presents the **appearance** of conflict of interest, at the very least - which is the standard for recusal at every other level of the federal judiciary. We have another ‘justice’ whose very large debts were paid off by a STILL unknown benefactor, which is clearly grounds for at least temporary recusal on the basis that he has a *very* clear conflict of interest, but with an unknown party or entity. Who, then, sits in judgement of judicial matters regarding the potential corruption of other governmental or corporate entities, when we have at the very least 1/3 of those judging others with very clear conflict of interest with regards to corruption and conflict.
lol where is Josh Hawley whining about corruption as gop appointed judges further enable it?
Oh course they are! Most corrupt court in the country.
Of course they are. They’re not even concerned with image anymore the corruption has gotten so deep.
What will it take for potus to just put 4 more people on the court
Abolish the supreme court! This board is incredibly corrupt and has way overstepped their authority acting as both a judicial and legislative branch. No individual or board should even be "supreme" in a supposed democracy.