The way I read all of this and th decision is that they are saying that this law specifically only applies to bribery. They define it as a quid quo pro in advance of an act.
In this particular case, you can't charge the guy with bribery because it doesn't meet the definition.
That doesn't mean a "tip after the fact" isn't corrupt. That doesn't mean that's not in violation of some other law. It's saying that you can't apply this law to this case. This court is threading a fucking needle in an attempt to make this a state issue and say the Fed law can't apply.
Justice Jackson's dissent is amazing though:
Snyder's absurd and atextual reading of the statute is one only today's Court could love."
The Court's reasoning elevates nonexistent federalism concerns over the plain text of this statute and is a quintessential example of the tail wagging the dog," Jackson added.
Officials who use their public positions for private gain threaten the integrity of our most important institutions. Greed makes governments—at every level—less responsive, less efficient, and less trustworthy from the perspective of the communities they serve,"
SCOTUS has routinely bent over backwards to protect politicians from corruption and bribery charges though so the message is clear. You cannot charge a politician with bribery except in extreme circumstances. Like them being a democrat.
"At every level" she's making specific reference to a specific certain level in the US judicial system here... Some pretty good, brave activism three - good luck getting your mom a house from a billionaire now Justice Jackson
Your comment is nonsensical. Format that shit. And wtf, are you saying Judge Jackson is corrupt as well? You are making no sense.
Their formatting was dog dukey, but I was still able to parse what they were saying fairly easily. They're saying "good job judge Jackson. Too bad you won't be able to get a free house from insert evil billionaire here (/s)". While I agree with your sentiment, the way you go about pointing these things out can backfire, if done with a rude tone, such as the way you chose to do it. There you go; an unsolicited constructive criticism for an unsolicited constructive criticism. :)
The way I read all of this and th decision is that they are saying that this law specifically only applies to bribery. They define it as a quid quo pro in advance of an act.
In this particular case, you can't charge the guy with bribery because it doesn't meet the definition.
That doesn't mean a "tip after the fact" isn't corrupt. That doesn't mean that's not in violation of some other law. It's saying that you can't apply this law to this case. This court is threading a fucking needle in an attempt to make this a state issue and say the Fed law can't apply.
Justice Jackson's dissent is amazing though:
SCOTUS has routinely bent over backwards to protect politicians from corruption and bribery charges though so the message is clear. You cannot charge a politician with bribery except in extreme circumstances. Like them being a democrat.
"At every level" she's making specific reference to a specific certain level in the US judicial system here... Some pretty good, brave activism three - good luck getting your mom a house from a billionaire now Justice Jackson
Your comment is nonsensical. Format that shit. And wtf, are you saying Judge Jackson is corrupt as well? You are making no sense.
Their formatting was dog dukey, but I was still able to parse what they were saying fairly easily. They're saying "good job judge Jackson. Too bad you won't be able to get a free house from insert evil billionaire here (/s)". While I agree with your sentiment, the way you go about pointing these things out can backfire, if done with a rude tone, such as the way you chose to do it. There you go; an unsolicited constructive criticism for an unsolicited constructive criticism. :)
I like you better than yourr brother James.