BeaverFever

Fine I will go back and continue to repeat facts while you continue to pretend Bush V Gore is the exact sam as trumps ongoing attempt to steal the election. I have to tell you I have limited appetite to spend my preconceived free time on endless internet arguments with strangers that just go around and around The problem isn’t you quoting the RULING the problem is your claim that the existing law says things that it doesn’t say. To be clear Kavanaugh didn’t simply look up ehat the existing law clearly says. He applies his own novel interpretation of it. This is the interpretation that Kavanaugh has created. It’s not written in any existing law as your previous post seem to suggest. Since you want quotes here is the dissenting opinion: We took this case to resolve “[w]hether section 666 criminalizes gratuities, i.e., payments in recognition of actions the official has already taken or committed to take, without any quid pro quo agreement to take those actions.” Pet. for Cert. I. The majority today answers no, when the answer to that question should be an unequivocal yes. To reach the right conclusion we need not march through various auxiliary analyses: We can begin—and end—with only the text. See National Assn. of Mfrs. v. Department of Defense, 583 U. S. 109, 127 (2018). We “understan[d] that Congress says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there.” Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Union Planters Bank, N. A., 530 U. S. 1, 6 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). By its plain terms, §666 imposes criminal penalties on state, local, and tribal officials who “corruptly” solicit, accept, or agree to accept “anything of value from any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded.” §666(a)(1)(B). Use of the term “influenced” captures quid pro quo bargains struck before an official act is taken—and therefore bribes—as everyone agrees. Brief for Petitioner 17; Brief for United States 21; cf. Sun-Diamond, 526 U. S., at 404–405. The term “rewarded” easily covers the concept of gratuities paid to corrupt officials after the fact—no upfront agreement necessary. Dictionary definitions confirm what common sense tells us about what it means to be rewarded. A “reward” is “[t]hat which is given in return for good or evil done or received,” including “that which is offered or given for some service or attainment.” Webster’s New International Dictionary 2136 (2d ed. 1957). The verb form of the word is no different. To “reward” means “to . . . recompense.” Ibid. (defining “to reward” as “[t]o make a return, or give a reward, to (a person) or for (a service, etc.); to requite; recompense; repay”). Both definitions thus encompass payment in recognition of an action that an official has already taken or committed to taking. And neither requires there to be some beforehand agreement about that exchange, i.e., a quid pro quo…..See Luna Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools, 598 U. S. 142, 150 (2023) (“ ‘[W]e cannot replace the actual text with speculation as to Congress’ intent’ ”). … Crucially, no one disputes that when it was initially enacted, §666 prohibited both bribes and gratuities. Ante, at 4. Similarly significant (though unmentioned by the majority), Congress imposed the same 10-year maximum term of imprisonment for a violation then as it does now. See §666(b) (1982 ed., Supp. II); cf. ante, at 14 (describing it as “unfathomable that Congress would authorize a 10-year criminal sentence for gifts to 19 million state and local officials” without federal guidance).  Starting with this historical disadvantage regarding the scope of the statute, the majority must show that Congress made major changes to §666 that might account for the sans-gratuity interpretation the majority adopts today. But several features of the statutory and legislative history convince me of the opposite.  For one, Congress said that it was not making major changes to the statute. The 1986 revisions to §666 were part of a package of changes that Congress specifically deemed “technical and minor.” Crucially, no one disputes that when it was initially enacted, §666 prohibited both bribes and gratuities. Ante, at 4. Similarly significant (though unmentioned by the majority), Congress imposed the same 10-year maximum term of imprisonment for a violation then as it does now. See §666(b) (1982 ed., Supp. II); cf. ante, at 14 (describing it as “unfathomable that Congress would authorize a 10-year criminal sentence for gifts to 19 million state and local officials” without federal guidance).  Starting with this historical disadvantage regarding the scope of the statute, the majority must show that Congress made major changes to §666 that might account for the sans-gratuity interpretation the majority adopts today. But several features of the statutory and legislative history convince me of the opposite.  For one, Congress said that it was not making major changes to the statute. The 1986 revisions to §666 were part of a package of changes that Congress specifically deemed “technical and minor.” H. R. Rep. No. 99–797, p. 16 (1986); see also Criminal Law and Procedure Technical Amendments Act of 1986, 100 Stat. 3592. And the revisions themselves are largely in keeping with this characterization. Relevant here, Congress teased out a “corruptly” mens rea requirement and swapped the previous “for or because of ” language for the current “intending to be influenced or rewarded” phrasing. Id., at 3613. None of this, on its face, evinces clear congressional intent to extract an entire category of previously covered illicit payments from §666. … I could go on, but let’s recap: 1) Your insinuation that the Kavanaugh was simply looking up and then relaying existing written law without providing any opinion or interpretation as if he was a co-op student is incorrect amd not what Supreme Court cases are about . His ruling was his interpretation of the existing law not his recitation of that. 2) The reasoning he provided for his interpretation of the law is easily dismantled by the dissenting opinion. The idea that congress intentionally decided not to limit the amount of rewards that federally-funded officials could receive from people and interests they have authority over even if in the millions is absurd 3) Everyone know that quid pro quo arrangements are are easily circumvented with a wink amd a nod and indirect communications and to suggest lawmakers didn’t limit that is also absurd 4) Does anyone believe that America is better off with these cash rewards now legally payable to public officials? Who other than republicans like Thomas who are constantly on the take suports that? I bet that makes you giggle. Being a brownshirt thug is your fantasy

The NCR whining from the right just won’t die. NCR has the law of the land for decades and yet the incidenceof someone being found NCR who then committing a subsequent serious offence is virtually zero. People found to be NCR also don’t “get away” with their crime, if it’s something serious like murder they are hospitalized until they are deemed to no longer pose a threat to themselves or others, which can mean the rest of their life if their condition doesn’t improve. Even when they do get released from hospital they are closely monitored again potentially for the rest of their lives, to ensure they are taking any required medications and treatments and complying with any other conditions.

And yet ironically in Texas “affluenza” is a legitimate defence: kill 4 people and then complain you grew up so rich and spoiled you didn’t learn right from wrong and you get off easy without jail time. These are the same people who scream that ther should be an end to “the abuse excuse” for horribly abused/neglected low income (read: black) children who grow up to become criminals. And of course they’re equally unsympathetic to the mentally ill and mental handicapped

Lt.-Gen. Jennie Carignan chosen as first woman to head Canadian Armed Forces Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has selected Lieutenant-General Jennie Carignan as the next Chief of the Defence Staff, the first woman to head the Canadian Armed Forces, according to a senior government official. She replaces General Wayne Eyre, who is retiring after 40 years of service; he has held the top military job since 2021. The announcement is expected Tuesday and Lt.-Gen. Carignan will officially take up her duties during a change-of-command ceremony on July 18 at the Canadian War Museum. … Lt.-Gen. Carignan is a three-star general with a reputation for excellent service. She has commanded troops in a NATO mission in Iraq, served as chief of staff of army operations and held senior roles at National Defence headquarters. The Prime Minister has spoken often about the need to promote women to important positions in government. Thomas Juneau, a professor at the University of Ottawa’s graduate school of public and international affairs, said Lt.-Gen. Carignan “has significant and very diverse experience, which is very good.” She is “known as a doer,” he said. “She is very direct, very blunt and generally viewed as effective.” … https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-jennie-carignan-first-woman-canadian-armed-forces/#:~:text=Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has,to a senior government official.

I call Bullshit. Cite please.

It’s a fact that Trump told huge lies, such as his claim that legal abortion includes giving birth to a live baby at 9 months and then murdering it in the delivery room

Construction finally begins on the new Canadian Surface Combatants today, when it was announced the new class of ships will be called “River Class Guided Missile Destroyers” (with designation DDGH). The name is in honour of the WW2 River Class Destroyers, which were each named after Canadian rivers. The first 3 CSC vessels will be named after WW2 warships HMCS Fraser, Mackenzie and St. Laurent. What surprised me is that this is the first time I’ve heard of the CSC being referred to as a Destroyer rather than a Frigate especially since it’s based on the British Type 26 Frigate design. While larger than most frigates the CSC is smaller than most destroyers. Apparently they are going with destroyer because of the range of weapons and sensors being packed in, including area air defence, ASW, ASuW and land attack but I wonder if some will find this designation controversial. So far the design (still not finalized) has a relatively tiny number of missile launch cells compared to most destroyers (24 instead of 96). RIVER-CLASS DESTROYER ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY https://www.canada.ca/en/navy/corporate/fleet-units/surface/river-class-destroyer.html

I caught most of the debate and agree with the overwhelming consensus that the debate wasn’t as much a Trump win as it was a massive Biden loss. Trump was the same old trump we always see, full of egregious lies the blow up the BS meter. The Q&A and timed answer even enhanced his image because it prevents him from rambling off on nonsense like getting eaten by sharks etc like he does at his rallies. Biden OTOH catastrophically failed in a manner that shocked even his closest supporters and did so in a way that also seemed to confirm voters’ preexisting fears and Republican accusations. There was also the incredibly dumb decision by his people for Biden to unsteadily walk down the steps at the front of the stage after the debate with the help of his wife, just to shake the moderators’ hands. Rather than simply strolling offstage to the side as Trump did, people instead received another visual reminder of Biden’s frailty as his wife helped him slowly down the steps. Some think with the election still 4 months away it’s still possible for Biden to come back and they claim last night’s performance was an anomaly. But even if true it seems that would require Biden to execute an absolutely error-free delivery from now on which was never his strong suit to begin with. I am guessing that would require him to somehow redeem himself with another debate or a hard-ball interview to show that he’s capable of high performance under pressure, which is very risky. If his prospects are not mortally wounded already, another Mr Magoo performance like last night will kill them for sure. Trump for his part might refuse another debate just to deny Biden any chance at redemption.

Once again disproving the mainstream media:CNN conspiracy bullshit

Exactly what the Nazi supporters said. Note I’m not even calling you a nazi, you’re more like the dumbass street thugs who cheered the Nazis on and went around starting fights and throwing bricks at anyone who wasn’t on board

No, the Republicans invented a definition of gratuity and bribery which didn’t previously exist in order to justify bribes paid after the fact. The statute in question didn’t make a distinction between the two, the law the mayor was accused of violating doesn’t use the words “bribe” or “gratuity. SCOTUS looked to other US legislation and past legal decisions to create a definition distinguishing the two. The Republicans then said the difference should be whether it is paid before or after the act. The idea that someone can legally shower public officials with cash and riches when they do their bidding as long as they don’t negotiate the exact amount in advance is ridiculous. All you would have to do is tell the official “I always give generous gratuities” and maybe drop a few hints. At any rate after the first time you pay you “gratuity” everyone will know what to expect from you next time you need a favour. It’s a clear conflict of interest, most people would be fired on the spot if they took a kickback like that at work

I don’t know what your Bush v Gore reference is about but your inaccurate claims on this thread lead me to believe you probably misrepresent what that ruling was as well.

Nowhere in your regurgitation did it define the difference between a bribe and a gratuity, The Republican SCOTUS argument simply says they are different. Once again you avoid answering question. So I will ask a third time: what is your understanding of the difference between a bribe and a gratuity? Don’t just say the law says what the difference is, tell me exactly what the law says. You can’t of course because the law doesn’t say it at all. The SCOTUS ruling is just an attempt to justify paying bribes after the fact. You don’t need to negotiate details of bribes in advance. It’s enough to know that person X always pays handsomely with generous “gratuities” when selected for government contracts, especially if Person X is someone you know personally. And note in this specific case the crooked mayor had a private relationship with this contractor so likely was well positioned to expect that a “gratuity” would be coming his way once his business associate was awarded the contract. Even if we make the dubious assumption that the crooked mayor had no idea this cash kickback was coming and was totally surprised by it, now having received this generous “gratuity” he and everyone else now knows that they can expect generous “gratuities” from this individual going forward whenever future contracts or decisions are favourable to him. The exact amount of the bribe doesn’t need to be negotiated in advance in order to influence their decisions and actions. They know they will receive “something of value” to “influence or reward” their “official act”, which is illegal.

Mindless repetition of slogans and cliches is also a characteristic of fascist followers See Hannah Arendt’s “Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil”. In her interview with imprisoned Nazi leader and Holocaust architect Adolf Eichmann, she observes Eichmann is shallow, simplistic and unintelligent with an inability to think for himself, exemplified by his consistent use of "stock phrases and self-invented clichés". You fit the nazi follower profile to a tee.

That’s the title of the article I quoted and it’s a valid interpretation of their ruling No that is absolutely false. You need to re-read the article and quote the sections that say what you claim it says because it doesn’t say that at all The law doesn’t define gratuities at all thats why the Republicans invented a definition. Please provide the definition as you claim it is clearly provided. The question is “what is the difference between a bribe and a gratuity” it says so right there in the third paragraph The law clearly prohibits providing “anything of value” to “influence or reward” an “official act.” I think we can all agree $13,000 cash is something of value, purchasing garbage trucks for the city is an official act and a gratuity is a reward. Even the Republican calls it “a token of appreciation” after an act. I asked you what is your understanding of what makes one legal on one illegal and you dodged the question. Instead you falsely claim that the law clearly defined what made one legal and the other illegal but conveniently you don’t mention what that definition is, because of course the law doesn’t clearly define it at all. The republican judges invented a definition in this ruling that if it’s paid afterwards it’s legal. It says so in the second paragraph.

What is your understanding of the difference between a bribe and a gratuity? The republican judges claimed the only difference, which makes one legal and the other illegal, is whether it is paid before or after the deed, which is absurd.

…..said every dictator and fascist in history

Not quite. The corrupt republicans absurdly ruled that cash kickbacks are “gratuities” not bribes, as long as they paid afterwards rather than before. In other words the argument is not whether the law states all gratuities should be illegal but whether cash bribes should be considered perfectly legal gratuities based on the timing of when they’re paid.

Thanks for confirming my observation, evildoer. Your words are no different than any other despot-worshipper who has ever existed.

So like a typical fascist you support corruption from your party as some kind of ”revenge” for alleged corruption real or imagined by the other party. You don’t even try to deny it. At best you justify more evil based on the previous evil of other people What’s amusing though is that you think this makes you the good guy instead of just another evildoer. On top of that the alleged previous evil you use as justification is often made up or grossly exaggerated therefore you’re just an evildoer making excuses for being evil.

If you loved the Republican Supreme Court recent hits like “corporations are people and political donations are free speech so corporations should be allowed to make unlimited secret political contributions” then you’ll love their latest single “bribes should be legal as long as they’re paid AFTERWARDS”. As if America needs any more legalized corruption, but what else do you expect when Republican crooks like Thomas are blatantly on the take to the tune of millions and the party is completely in the pocket of corporations and plutocrats.

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. Ian MillhiserJun 26, 2024 at 2:06 PM EDT On a 6-3 party-line vote, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that state officials may accept “gratuities” from people who wish to reward them for their official actions, despite a federal anti-corruption statute that appears to ban such rewards. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the opinion in Snyder v. United States for the Court’s Republican-appointed majority. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the dissent on behalf of the Court’s three Democratic appointees. Snyder turns on a distinction between “bribes” and “gratuities.” As Kavanaugh writes, “bribes are payments made or agreed to before an official act in order to influence the official with respect to that future official act.” Gratuities, by contrast, “are typically payments made to an official after an official act as a token of appreciation.” (Emphasis added.) If that seems like a negligible difference, the facts of this case will probably only underscore that sentiment. The case involves James Snyder, a former mayor who accepted a $13,000 gratuity from a truck company after the city purchased five trash trucks from that company for $1.1 million. Snyder claims that the money was a consulting fee, but federal prosecutors nonetheless charged him with violating an anti-corruption statute. That statute prohibits state officials from “corruptly” accepting “anything of value from any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded” for an official act. As Jackson writes in her dissent, the most natural reading of this statute is that it targets both bribes (payments that “influenced” a future decision) and gratuities (payments that “rewarded” a past decision). As Jackson writes, Jackson argues that the statute should be read to prohibit “rewards corruptly accepted by government officials in ways that are functionally indistinguishable from taking a bribe,” much like the payment at issue in this case appears to be … It’s also notable that neither Justice Clarence Thomas nor Justice Samuel Alito, both of whom have accepted expensive gifts from politically active Republican billionaires, recused themselves from the case. Thomas and Alito both joined Kavanaugh’s opinion reading the anti-corruption statute narrowly. https://www.vox.com/scotus/357170/supreme-court-snyder-united-states-corruption

So do you think Republicans fast and pray before or after they pay their porn stars hush money? Do you do it before or after you jerk off to your rape fantasies? Nothing is different stupid and vile trolls like you have always existed. The only difference is one of you inherited a fortune at birth so you want him to be president You want the entire country to be shitty as your life is.

LOL you've made it clear with your constant sexualized insults that you are the pervert- a violent woman-hating one at that. And while perversion usually doesn’t correlate to ignorance and stupidity as you implied in you lame insult above, you clearly suffer from both conditions. Your lack of formal schooling and sexual success have left you not only ignorant and vulnerable to obvious mid information and manipulation but a toxic blight on society especially females.

A month of fasting and prayer is literally what Ramadan is