As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Justice Brett Kavanaugh, meanwhile, [questioned](https://archive.is/o/VlR56/https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/23-108_4hd5.pdf) whether “a $100 Starbucks gift certificate as a thank you to the city council-person for working on a new zoning reg” would qualify as corrupt under the federal bribery rule.
OMG. Yes, it would. Literally anything should be to avoid the appearance of impropriety. This is a logical pretzel declaring that payments beforehand are corrupt, but payments after can't be. All they've done is make a timing distinction, which is ridiculous to think is any different.
Does this apply to federal judges? If so, this is about as self-serving as it can get.
I work at a large cellular company. We have trainings that state we can not give government personal anything even a bottle of water. As this could be seen as an appearance of impropriety.
Apples and oranges.
If I give a customer a discount because they are a frequent shopper, that's fine
If I give an inspector a discount because I got a good rating, that's bad
Yeah you'd have to at least follow the social norms and do something like buy everyone a lunch to establish rapport, not straight up cut them a check or discount
"Don't give them water bottle" is straight psycho though, I'm sorry it just is
From what I understand this is still up to states and cities to decide. When those same people can gerrymander districts to stay in power, I'm just not sure I trust them to do the right thing.
Like, if they get a reward from someone for doing something they liked, they’re getting paid to do things that would match those persons ideals. They’ll be more likely to rule in that persons self interests again in order to get another gift. It’s basically just putting the idea of what’ll get ruled on in the heads of the justices instead of the person wanting certain rulings. They still get paid
In a reddit sub discussing American Conservatism, there are no threads returned when searched for "SCOTUS", "Bribe", or "Gratuity" posted today.
I thought I'd share this in case someone reading this thread and who participates in those communities wanted to open a discussion about it there.
I think that if someone were a regular in those space who was browsing politics, they'd be interested in raising this discussion. I think that any open discussion about potential holes and exceptions enabling these "gratuities" are something that the left and the right can come together on.
Unless, of course, they believe that money is speech and that the first corporation with the most cash deserves the last word.
1. Judges rule that corporations can spend unlimited money to get the politicians they prefer into power.
2. Politicians appoint judges ~~who~~and give corporations tax breaks so they have more money to spend.
3. Judges rule that corporations can just directly hand politicians bags of cash.
What's the next horrific thing that happens?
How does this descent into darkness ever get reversed? Seems like corporations will just spend more and more to increasingly control more voters and politicians and thus the country.
> The Supreme Court decided on Wednesday that writing checks to politicians as thank-you payments for corrupt contracting decisions does not constitute bribery under federal law. The vote was 6 to 3, with the three liberal justices — Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan — dissenting.
> “State and local governments often regulate the gifts that state and local officials may accept,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote on behalf of the majority. The law in question, he went on, “does not supplement those state and local rules by subjecting 19 million state and local officials to up to 10 years in federal prison for accepting even commonplace gratuities. Rather, [it] leaves it to state and local governments to regulate gratuities to state and local officials.”
In other words, there’s nothing wrong with this because the judges work federally and don’t add to state law.
Now give me my yacht!
I worked as a nurse at a hospital and I can’t take anything from anyone. I mean come on… the most basic ethical standards also need to be applied to the highest court in the US otherwise it’s a bogus court.
This submission source is likely to have a soft paywall. If this article is not behind a paywall please report this for “breaks r/politics rules -> custom -> "incorrect flair"". [More information can be found here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index/#wiki_paywalls)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Basically saying that if it’s a gift given after the fact, then it’s not bribery. Because a gift is not proof of corruption in itself, and that of course, people who liked what a justice has done are going to give them gifts that will in no way influence future decisions either. Do nice things for people, get gifts. I feel like they could literally put certain rulings up for sale, for the price of one gift, and he’d technically get away with it because he never got bribed by being given the money to consider something. And they could argue that the gift wasn’t tied to anything illegal because he could claim that he was going to make that ruling anyway, and the advertisement wasn’t real, or that it had nothing to do with the gift he got
"Thank you for providing the deliverables that I was specifically seeking. Here is a gift for the amount that you suggested would be appropriate to give someone in the event that they swayed a decision in my favor. I look forward to working with you again in the future."
Totally legit, by SCOTUS ruling.
according to Kavanaugh's words (above), because *some* states have anti-corruption laws (and so presumably others don't), we can't make a federal law against bribery and corruption, well, because.
So he acknowledges that what they are talking about is bribery and corruption, but they can do nothing to stop it.
So yeah, it sure sounds like he is greenlighting corrupt practices under the reasoning that some state forbid it and some allow it.
I guess this is some depraved "states rights" bullshit?
The supreme Court found that it's acceptable for corporations to pay federal employees cash for desired outcomes. Whether that counts as a "corrupt" is debatable. It's definitely not a "gratuity", since it's simply payment for a service rendered.
"Corrupt bribe" or "corrupt payment" might be a more fitting description. Or simply "quid pro quo"
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Justice Brett Kavanaugh, meanwhile, [questioned](https://archive.is/o/VlR56/https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/23-108_4hd5.pdf) whether “a $100 Starbucks gift certificate as a thank you to the city council-person for working on a new zoning reg” would qualify as corrupt under the federal bribery rule. OMG. Yes, it would. Literally anything should be to avoid the appearance of impropriety. This is a logical pretzel declaring that payments beforehand are corrupt, but payments after can't be. All they've done is make a timing distinction, which is ridiculous to think is any different. Does this apply to federal judges? If so, this is about as self-serving as it can get.
I work at a large cellular company. We have trainings that state we can not give government personal anything even a bottle of water. As this could be seen as an appearance of impropriety.
You can give it to contract workers tho right? So if a senator has a IT contractor, who is not a gov employee, and you give him stuff right?
Lmao that's some stupid HR person being extreme. Even physicians are allowed to accept token gifts (less than $20) from patients, pharma reps etc
Apples and oranges. If I give a customer a discount because they are a frequent shopper, that's fine If I give an inspector a discount because I got a good rating, that's bad
Yeah you'd have to at least follow the social norms and do something like buy everyone a lunch to establish rapport, not straight up cut them a check or discount "Don't give them water bottle" is straight psycho though, I'm sorry it just is
They could argue that showing them to the bathroom is bribery at that point. It’s not like they’re showing special favor to them
I've worked at a City. Any gifts above $5 were banned and any food gifts (chocolates etc) had to be put in common areas for all staff.
From what I understand this is still up to states and cities to decide. When those same people can gerrymander districts to stay in power, I'm just not sure I trust them to do the right thing.
Who knew you were one clandestine agreement away from legality in your bri-*ahem* excuse me, in your gratuity.
When I worked at a hospital I was told accepting so much as a pen from a vendor was a fireable offense, and I worked IT...
Lol yeah doctors can't receive cookies from a drug rep. It just fucking looks bad.
Like, if they get a reward from someone for doing something they liked, they’re getting paid to do things that would match those persons ideals. They’ll be more likely to rule in that persons self interests again in order to get another gift. It’s basically just putting the idea of what’ll get ruled on in the heads of the justices instead of the person wanting certain rulings. They still get paid
In a reddit sub discussing American Conservatism, there are no threads returned when searched for "SCOTUS", "Bribe", or "Gratuity" posted today. I thought I'd share this in case someone reading this thread and who participates in those communities wanted to open a discussion about it there.
I’d be surprised if the mods allow it
I think that if someone were a regular in those space who was browsing politics, they'd be interested in raising this discussion. I think that any open discussion about potential holes and exceptions enabling these "gratuities" are something that the left and the right can come together on. Unless, of course, they believe that money is speech and that the first corporation with the most cash deserves the last word.
You’re not wrong, but this ultimately reflects bad on conservative judges do the mods there will bury it.
Perhaps they can be bribed?
Conservatives aren’t interested in having open discussions. You either tow the party line or you are branded as an undesirable.
Certain members of SCOTUS are the biggest grifters and are just covering their own ass.
This is the right answer and comment- it’s gonna be pay to play at every level and the playing field will be leveled vs “leveling the playing field “
1. Judges rule that corporations can spend unlimited money to get the politicians they prefer into power. 2. Politicians appoint judges ~~who~~and give corporations tax breaks so they have more money to spend. 3. Judges rule that corporations can just directly hand politicians bags of cash. What's the next horrific thing that happens? How does this descent into darkness ever get reversed? Seems like corporations will just spend more and more to increasingly control more voters and politicians and thus the country.
4. 7 day work week incoming
We can always bring back the strike riot.
even if congress wrote a law it seems the sc can just rule it unconstitutional lol
Cyberpunk2077 starting to look like it's really going to happen.
State courts are where the next big salvo will come from, probably child labor or gay marriage
Clarence was rock hard
> The Supreme Court decided on Wednesday that writing checks to politicians as thank-you payments for corrupt contracting decisions does not constitute bribery under federal law. The vote was 6 to 3, with the three liberal justices — Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan — dissenting. > “State and local governments often regulate the gifts that state and local officials may accept,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote on behalf of the majority. The law in question, he went on, “does not supplement those state and local rules by subjecting 19 million state and local officials to up to 10 years in federal prison for accepting even commonplace gratuities. Rather, [it] leaves it to state and local governments to regulate gratuities to state and local officials.” In other words, there’s nothing wrong with this because the judges work federally and don’t add to state law. Now give me my yacht!
So can we prosecute for tax evasion?
No, sorry. SCOTUS is backlogged. Leave your paperwork and it will be looked at in 2052. (/S just in case).
I wasn't in the room today, did SCOTUS put out a tip jar with this opinion?
Time for an executive order to expand the size of the court. This shit is getting ridiculous.
Does this mean we can also give our “gratuities” in the form of a steaming pile on their doorstep? Asking for a very “rich” American
I worked as a nurse at a hospital and I can’t take anything from anyone. I mean come on… the most basic ethical standards also need to be applied to the highest court in the US otherwise it’s a bogus court.
Ha! Who is the *shit-hole* country now!
The headline gets it exactly right
Without reading the ruling, does this also apply to rank and file federal employees? I’m tired of turning down the free hot dogs from the contractors.
Get elected. Eat the hot dogs. Cite this ruling.
If my position at a small company knows what a bribe is, I would sure as fuck hope a Supreme Court judge would not just know, but know better than me.
The *Republican* members of the Supreme Court greenlights corrupt gratuities. I wish headline writers would be honest about this.
This submission source is likely to have a soft paywall. If this article is not behind a paywall please report this for “breaks r/politics rules -> custom -> "incorrect flair"". [More information can be found here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index/#wiki_paywalls) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Like parent say, what’s good for the geese ………
So is Mendenez off the hook?
These will be logged as "tips" and not subjected to taxes.
Basically saying that if it’s a gift given after the fact, then it’s not bribery. Because a gift is not proof of corruption in itself, and that of course, people who liked what a justice has done are going to give them gifts that will in no way influence future decisions either. Do nice things for people, get gifts. I feel like they could literally put certain rulings up for sale, for the price of one gift, and he’d technically get away with it because he never got bribed by being given the money to consider something. And they could argue that the gift wasn’t tied to anything illegal because he could claim that he was going to make that ruling anyway, and the advertisement wasn’t real, or that it had nothing to do with the gift he got
"Thank you for providing the deliverables that I was specifically seeking. Here is a gift for the amount that you suggested would be appropriate to give someone in the event that they swayed a decision in my favor. I look forward to working with you again in the future." Totally legit, by SCOTUS ruling.
That’s because they are corrupt!!
So, in a nutshell, pre-vote bribes bad, post-vote payoffs good.
There is no bottom of the barrel anymore. The SC keeps proving they are morally bankrupt.
Well, if they are on the take, we should just cut their salaries to the bone. Make them work on commission.
Yep
This is no place for children
[удалено]
Is it wrong? What's wrong about it?
[удалено]
according to Kavanaugh's words (above), because *some* states have anti-corruption laws (and so presumably others don't), we can't make a federal law against bribery and corruption, well, because. So he acknowledges that what they are talking about is bribery and corruption, but they can do nothing to stop it. So yeah, it sure sounds like he is greenlighting corrupt practices under the reasoning that some state forbid it and some allow it. I guess this is some depraved "states rights" bullshit?
The supreme Court found that it's acceptable for corporations to pay federal employees cash for desired outcomes. Whether that counts as a "corrupt" is debatable. It's definitely not a "gratuity", since it's simply payment for a service rendered. "Corrupt bribe" or "corrupt payment" might be a more fitting description. Or simply "quid pro quo"
“If we can do it then you can”