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

[Nationalist]

35 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

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

What comes around...goes around.

22 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

…..said every dictator and fascist in history 

ya...right...

What comes around...goes around.

[BeaverFever]

1 hour ago, User said:

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. 

That’s the title of the article I quoted and it’s a valid interpretation of their ruling

 

1 hour ago, User said:

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. 

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. 

 

1 hour ago, User said:

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

The SCOTUS pointed this out. 

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. 

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, User said:

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. 

Yes, you are simple, ignoring that the bribe may be negotiated in advance and be "legal" as long as no one finds out about it being negotiated in advance.

And absurd.

[User]

3 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

That’s the title of the article I quoted and it’s a valid interpretation of their ruling

No, it is not. They judged the law as it was written, they did not say officials could engage in a little corruption. 

4 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

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 

Why do I need to re-read the article?

I am reading the SCOTUS ruling on the law. 

This is your problem, read what the law says and what SCOTUS actually said. 

5 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

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. 

READ THE LAW AND THE RULING for crying out loud. 

"Statutory structure reinforces that §666 is a bribery statute, not a two-for-one bribery-and-gratuities statute as the Government posits. The Government identifies no other provision in the U. S. Code that prohibits bribes and gratuities in the same provision. And §201 does not do so. That is because bribery and gratuities are “two separate crimes” with “two different sets of elements.” United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of Cal., 526 U. S. 398, 404. P. 9. (4) For federal officials, Congress has separated bribery and gratuities into two distinct provisions of §201 for good reason: The Cite as: 603 U. S. ____ (2024) 3 Syllabus crimes receive different punishments that “reflect their relative seriousness.” Sun-Diamond, 526 U. S., at 405. For example, accepting a bribe as a federal official is punishable by up to 15 years in prison, while accepting an illegal gratuity as a federal official is punishable by up to only 2 years. If the Government were correct that §666 also covered gratuities, Congress would have inexplicably authorized punishing gratuities to state and local officials five times more severely than gratuities to federal officials—10 years for state and local officials compared to 2 years for federal officials. The Government cannot explain why Congress would have created such substantial sentencing disparities. Pp. 9–10."

That is only part of their reasoning. 

8 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

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. 

My understanding is what the SCOTUS said. That is the point here. 

I am not interested in what your biased article says, read the actual law. 

5 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Yes, you are simple, ignoring that the bribe may be negotiated in advance and be "legal" as long as no one finds out about it being negotiated in advance.

And absurd.

Except, this was not negotiated in advance... the SCOTUS ruling clearly explains all this in the difference between a Bribe and Gratuity in needing the mens rea. 
 

[BeaverFever]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

What comes around...goes around.

ya...right...

What comes around...goes around.

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. 

[User]

This thread makes perfect sense. The same posters who can't be bothered to read the Bush v Gore decision didn't read this one either. 

Just pure ignorance and lies. 

[robosmith]

10 minutes ago, User said:

Except, this was not negotiated in advance... the SCOTUS ruling clearly explains all this in the difference between a Bribe and Gratuity in needing the mens rea. 
 

You mean no one found out that it was negotiated in advance.

You CAN'T KNOW that it wasn't, but you can naively believe that you "know."

9 minutes ago, User said:

Just pure ignorance and lies. 

That's what YOU HAVE to prove it wasn't a bribe negotiated in advance.

[User]

10 minutes ago, robosmith said:

You mean no one found out that it was negotiated in advance.

You CAN'T KNOW that it wasn't, but you can naively believe that you "know."

So... you have no evidence it was a bribe, but want to call it a bribe. 

That is not how the legal system works, where you just get to presume guilt. You have to prove guilt. 

11 minutes ago, robosmith said:

That's what YOU HAVE to prove it wasn't a bribe negotiated in advance.

I don't have to prove anything. There is no evidence it was a bribe. This case is about it being an illegal gratuity. He was not found guilty for taking a bribe. 

They tried to use the bribery statute wrongly, all the SCOTUS said here was you can't do that. The law doesn't say that. 

 

[robosmith]

2 minutes ago, User said:

So... you have no evidence it was a bribe, but want to call it a bribe. 

That is not how the legal system works, where you just get to presume guilt. You have to prove guilt.

You said you know it wasn't negotiated in advance. But you DON'T.

 

2 minutes ago, User said:

I don't have to prove anything. There is no evidence it was a bribe. This case is about it being an illegal gratuity. He was not found guilty for taking a bribe. 

They tried to use the bribery statute wrongly, all the SCOTUS said here was you can't do that. The law doesn't say that. 

Like I said, you are as naive as the right wingers on the SCOTUS pretend to be.

[Hodad]

17 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Some "goes around" happenin' boys?

Huh...

I believe the phrase you're actually looking for is "reacharound."

[BeaverFever]

4 minutes ago, User said:

No, it is not. They judged the law as it was written, they did not say officials could engage in a little corruption. 

Why do I need to re-read the article?

I am reading the SCOTUS ruling on the law. 

This is your problem, read what the law says and what SCOTUS actually said. 

READ THE LAW AND THE RULING for crying out loud. 

"Statutory structure reinforces that §666 is a bribery statute, not a two-for-one bribery-and-gratuities statute as the Government posits. The Government identifies no other provision in the U. S. Code that prohibits bribes and gratuities in the same provision. And §201 does not do so. That is because bribery and gratuities are “two separate crimes” with “two different sets of elements.” United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of Cal., 526 U. S. 398, 404. P. 9. (4) For federal officials, Congress has separated bribery and gratuities into two distinct provisions of §201 for good reason: The Cite as: 603 U. S. ____ (2024) 3 Syllabus crimes receive different punishments that “reflect their relative seriousness.” Sun-Diamond, 526 U. S., at 405. For example, accepting a bribe as a federal official is punishable by up to 15 years in prison, while accepting an illegal gratuity as a federal official is punishable by up to only 2 years. If the Government were correct that §666 also covered gratuities, Congress would have inexplicably authorized punishing gratuities to state and local officials five times more severely than gratuities to federal officials—10 years for state and local officials compared to 2 years for federal officials. The Government cannot explain why Congress would have created such substantial sentencing disparities. Pp. 9–10."

That is only part of their reasoning. 

My understanding is what the SCOTUS said. That is the point here. 

I am not interested in what your biased article says, read the actual law. 

Except, this was not negotiated in advance... the SCOTUS ruling clearly explains all this in the difference between a Bribe and Gratuity in needing the mens rea. 
 

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. 

8 minutes ago, User said:

Except, this was not negotiated in advance... the SCOTUS ruling clearly explains all this in the difference between a Bribe and Gratuity in needing the mens rea. 

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. 

[BeaverFever]

31 minutes ago, User said:

This thread makes perfect sense. The same posters who can't be bothered to read the Bush v Gore decision didn't read this one either. 

Just pure ignorance and lies. 

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. 

[User]

11 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

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. 

Of course, you forget that you ran away from this discussion...

I am the one quoting the actual ruling in this discussion and you are quoting a biased article about it...

 

[User]

18 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Nowhere in your regurgitation did it define the difference between a bribe and a gratuity, The Republican SCOTUS argument simply says they are different.

READ THE LAW. READ THE RULING

"Therefore, the dividing line between §201(b)’s bribery provision and §201(c)’s gratuities provision is that bribery requires that the official have a corrupt state of mind and accept (or agree to accept) the payment intending to be influenced in the official act."

You are just sea lioning now. You have the link you refuse to read it. 

 

27 minutes ago, robosmith said:

You said you know it wasn't negotiated in advance. But you DON'T.

Yeah, and we don't know if Unicorns really don't exist or not...

28 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Like I said, you are as naive as the right wingers on the SCOTUS pretend to be.

No, I read the law and I read the ruling. You choose to be ignorant and a liar. 

[BeaverFever]

13 minutes ago, User said:

They tried to use the bribery statute wrongly, all the SCOTUS said here was you can't do that. The law doesn't say that. 

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

[User]

1 minute ago, BeaverFever said:

No, the Republicans invented a definition of gratuity and bribery which didn’t previously exist in order to justify bribes paid after the fact. 

Where did Republicans invent this?

That is not what the law said or what the court ruled on. 

2 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

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. 

Where did they create the definition in their ruling?

4 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

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.

That isn't what this ruling said at all. 

 

[Nationalist]

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

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. 

Yes well...not that you don't fall back on "NAZI" on a regular basis.

What I want...is for you lyin' sick little fcks to get exactly what you deserve.

I'll settle for success and prosperity...and a POTUS who knows what day it is.

Always remember...Karma is a b1tch.

[Nationalist]

2 hours ago, Hodad said:

I believe the phrase you're actually looking for is "reacharound."

No...it's "goes around".

[BeaverFever]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Yes well...not that you don't fall back on "NAZI" on a regular basis.

What I want...is for you lyin' sick little fcks to get exactly what you deserve.

I'll settle for success and prosperity...and a POTUS who knows what day it is.

Always remember...Karma is a b1tch.

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 

[Nationalist]

22 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

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 

Giggle...

[BeaverFever]

On 6/27/2024 at 2:08 PM, User said:

Of course, you forget that you ran away from this discussion...

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 

 

On 6/27/2024 at 2:08 PM, User said:

am the one quoting the actual ruling in this discussion and you are quoting a biased article about it...

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. 
 

On 6/27/2024 at 2:13 PM, User said:

Therefore, the dividing line between §201(b)’s bribery provision and §201(c)’s gratuities provision is that bribery requires that the official have a corrupt state of mind and accept (or agree to accept) the payment intending to be influenced in the official act."

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?

On 6/27/2024 at 7:08 PM, Nationalist said:

Giggle...

I bet that makes you giggle. Being a brownshirt thug is your fantasy 

[User]

40 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

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 

LOL, that is not all that was claimed by your or I in the discussion we were having. I schooled you on multiple claims you tried to make. 

42 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

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. 

The problem here was that you keep quoting the article. What exactly is it that I claimed the existing law says that it doesn't say? Be specific. 

No, the entire reason this made it to the Supreme Court was because of the way the prosecution tried to interpret the law beyond what it actually says, to include gratuities, when it clearly did not. 

That is the point that not only Kavanaugh makes, but the majority of the SCOTUS that he represents here. 

 

44 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

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:

Yes, you repeatedly demanded I show you where in the ruling it did this, I showed you. 

45 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

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. 

Do you not understand how majority opinions work? Kavanaugh wrote for the Opinion of the Court, not just himself. Yet... you keep naming him as if it were only his take. 

Yes... that is what the Supreme Court does, they interpret the law in disputes like these. Congratulations on stating the obvious. 
 

49 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

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 

Again... it was the majority opinion. 

No where did SCOTUS rule that gratuities are lawful. This was a technical ruling that the wrong statute was charged... they literally call this out and explain that there is a separate statute for gratuities. So, no, the SCOTUS majority did not say Congress did not decide to limit gratuties. 

Seriously, try reading the actual ruling. 
 

53 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

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 

See above... that is not what SCOTUS ruled on here. 

 

54 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

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?

Again, that is not what the ruling had anything to do with. See above. Again. 

Seriously... you have no clue what you are even talking about here. Read the ruling. 
 

[CdnFox]

On 6/26/2024 at 4:20 PM, BeaverFever said:

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. 

I disagree with the ruling. But you're over the top partisan hackery makes me not care  

[Nationalist]

10 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

I bet that makes you giggle. Being a brownshirt thug is your fantasy 

Lol...

Do I agree with the SCOTUS ruling on this one? Meh...not entirely. 

But...I and a lot of people have warned you petulant little sh1ts for years, 'Don't start a war you can't win.' Your responses have always been to laugh in our faces and in the face of the law and common decency. 

You DOXed the conservative appointed judges on the SCOTUS. You protested right in front of their family homes. One of you tried to assassinate Kavenaugh. Your endless lies, cheating and hatred have turned society into a fcking war zone.

Ya Tweenkie-Poo...you Libbies started this war and now you wanna whine when it comes home to bite y'all in the collective a55es. Oh poor baby.

I hope this only a prelude to what's coming. Trump is destroying Brandon and you twits have no realistic alternative. Your fcked!

Ten years ago the thought of using power and position to warp the law and screw the opposition, would have made my sick. Indeed...watching you a55holes do that has made me sick...and angry.

Angry enough to celebrate this decision because...

"It's the laaawww".

Ya gits wit ya pays fer you dumb b@stard.

Choke on it.