Republican Supreme Court rules that state officials can engage in a little corruption, as a treat

[BeaverFever]

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,

Everyone knows what a reward is. It is a $20 bill pulled from a lost wallet at the time of its return to its grateful owner. A surprise ice cream outing after a report card with straight As. The bar tab picked up by a supervisor celebrating a job well done by her team. A reward often says “thank you” or “good job,” rather than “please.”

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

Edited June 27, 2024 by BeaverFever

[BeaverFever]

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. 

[Hodad]

Apparently it's not a kickback if you can't prove it was negotiated beforehand.🙄

This is another nonsensical, indefensible ruling from our kooky conservative majority. This is not in keeping with the letter of the law, the spirit of the law, or the will of the people. 

I can see nakedly corrupt Thomas, or even Alito, being selfishly aligned with and protective of "gratuities" but some of the others are surprising. 

 

[Nationalist]

Some "goes around" happenin' boys?

Huh...

[BeaverFever]

7 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Some "goes around" happenin' boys?

Huh...

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. 

[Nationalist]

29 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

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. 

Beave...I've watched you disgusting Libbies warp and weaponize the law and the media for years now with almost no consequences. So you fckin' right! I hope when Trump is elected, that he tears you insane little sh1ts a new a55hole.

Enjoy the election...

Edited June 27, 2024 by Nationalist

[User]

What a dumb and dishonest thread this is. 

The Supreme Court literally read the law as written here. They never said the state can't make gratuities illegal, just that this statute did not cover them. 

You guys want the Supreme Court to write law here or to do what you think is right... not what is lawful. 

 

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, User said:

You guys want the Supreme Court to write law here or to do what you think is right... not what is lawful. 

What's right is upholding existing anti-corruption laws, not weakening them. I suppose it's possible legislators will be motivated to write stronger laws that prevent their getting k̶i̶c̶k̶b̶a̶c̶k̶s̶ gratuities but what are the chances?

[User]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

What's right is upholding existing anti-corruption laws, not weakening them. I suppose it's possible legislators will be motivated to write stronger laws that prevent their getting k̶i̶c̶k̶b̶a̶c̶k̶s̶ gratuities but what are the chances?

The law in question here was not specific to gratuity. It was that simple. The Supreme Court did not stop or say the State could not pass a law against gratuity like this, only that this law didn't cover that. 

Nothing was weakened. 

[eyeball]

12 minutes ago, User said:

The law in question here was not specific to gratuity. It was that simple. The Supreme Court did not stop or say the State could not pass a law against gratuity like this, only that this law didn't cover that. 

Nothing was weakened. 

I highly doubt the motivation to pass a stronger law that does cover it was strengthened, especially amongst Republicans these days.

[Rebound]

7 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Some "goes around" happenin' boys?

Huh...

Remind us which political party now officially supports government corruption. 

[Nationalist]

2 hours ago, Rebound said:

Remind us which political party now officially supports government corruption. 

The Democrats. Everyone knows that. Even Democrats.

[Rebound]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

The Democrats. Everyone knows that. Even Democrats.

Well, dude, you’re sitting here joking about how a Supreme Court, including two members who have accepted substantial gifts, just decided that politicians can accept bribes if the bribes are paid after the deed is done and called a “gratuity.”   That’s crazy. 

[Nationalist]

25 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Well, dude, you’re sitting here joking about how a Supreme Court, including two members who have accepted substantial gifts, just decided that politicians can accept bribes if the bribes are paid after the deed is done and called a “gratuity.”   That’s crazy. 

Well dude...ya gits wut ya pays fer. 

I warned you cheatin' b@stards years ago. You break with tradition...you weaponize the legal system...you lie endlessly...you silence the people...

And there will be a high price to pay.

This is only the beginning. 

[User]

32 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Well, dude, you’re sitting here joking about how a Supreme Court, including two members who have accepted substantial gifts, just decided that politicians can accept bribes if the bribes are paid after the deed is done and called a “gratuity.”   That’s crazy. 

That isn’t what this ruling said…

 

 

[Rebound]

1 hour ago, User said:

That isn’t what this ruling said…

 

 

Uh, yeah it did...

"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."

It's f-ing absurd. What's next? Police officers get to accept "gratuities" from people they don't ticket? We pay judges $100,000 gratuities if they dismiss our case? That's how it works third world governments. 

[User]

4 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Uh, yeah it did...

"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."

It's f-ing absurd. What's next? Police officers get to accept "gratuities" from people they don't ticket? We pay judges $100,000 gratuities if they dismiss our case? That's how it works third world governments. 

You are just quoting what someone else said... and it also said gratuities. Not bribes. 

Try reading the actual ruling. 

It was nothing more than a reading of the existing law to show that it did not cover gratuities. It said nothing about being able to accept bribes, nor did it say Congress or lawmakers couldn't pass new laws or amend existing laws. 

 

 

[BeaverFever]

14 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Beave...I've watched you disgusting Libbies warp and weaponize the law and the media for years now with almost no consequences. So you fckin' right! I hope when Trump is elected, that he tears you insane little sh1ts a new a55hole.

Enjoy the election...

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

[BeaverFever]

12 hours ago, User said:

What a dumb and dishonest thread this is. 

The Supreme Court literally read the law as written here. They never said the state can't make gratuities illegal, just that this statute did not cover them. 

You guys want the Supreme Court to write law here or to do what you think is right... not what is lawful. 

 

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. 

[BeaverFever]

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Well dude...ya gits wut ya pays fer. 

I warned you cheatin' b@stards years ago. You break with tradition...you weaponize the legal system...you lie endlessly...you silence the people...

And there will be a high price to pay.

This is only the beginning. 

…..said every dictator and fascist in history 

[robosmith]

13 hours ago, User said:

What a dumb and dishonest thread this is. 

The Supreme Court literally read the law as written here. They never said the state can't make gratuities illegal, just that this statute did not cover them. 

You guys want the Supreme Court to write law here or to do what you think is right... not what is lawful. 

 

Sure. All the parties have to do is make sure no one finds out about a bribe negotiated in advance and everything is completely legal, right? 

You are as naive as the right wing SCOTUS is PRETENDING TO BE.

[BeaverFever]

1 hour ago, User said:

You are just quoting what someone else said... and it also said gratuities. Not bribes. 

Try reading the actual ruling. 

It was nothing more than a reading of the existing law to show that it did not cover gratuities. It said nothing about being able to accept bribes, nor did it say Congress or lawmakers couldn't pass new laws or amend existing laws. 

 

 

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. 

[User]

7 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

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. 

Yes, very quite. You titled this thread: "The Supreme Court rules that state officials can engage in a little corruption, as a treat"

Nothing they said ruled like that. 

It was dumb and dishonest. 

You are still ignoring that the law defines bribes and gratuities differently. The question was did the statute cited in the prosecution actually make gratuities illegal... and it did not. 

2 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

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. 

No, the way the law as currently written defined what was illegal made one illegal and the other not. 

The SCOTUS pointed this out. 

[User]

6 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Sure. All the parties have to do is make sure no one finds out about a bribe negotiated in advance and everything is completely legal, right? 

You are as naive as the right wing SCOTUS is PRETENDING TO BE.

Try reading. 

Try being honest for once in your life here. 

The law makes distinctions between bribes and gratuities, and in this case, the law did not make a gratuity illegal. It's that simple. 

[impartialobserver]

I would have voted against this one as well had I been on the SC. But I am not and so not sure what value there is in writing anything.