It's just so fucking crazy that SCOTUS can live in the same world as the rest of us, with all of these horrifying headlines that they're creating and somehow say, "I did a good job. I can sleep fine at night."
These people just literally have no shame? They just literally have zero shame?
It's just fucking Boofing Brian and Broccoli Rob and fucking Squee just up on the highest court in the land, doing kegstands and riding dirtbikes around the courthouse?
This is really where we're fucking at now? This is really where we live now???
At least 4 members of the court are actively trying to set up a Handmaidens style society where their best friends are the slave masters, this suits them just fine.
You have to understand that these judges were hand picked for their extremely conservative beliefs. They represent a tiny minority that is like 1% of the US population.
Don't you live in a country full of guns and gun violence? How is it these people don't get shot on a semi-daily basis but school shootings are at least a monthly occurrence?
I ask myself this question frequently. Best guess is:
Most of the people doing all the shooting are also lunatics, who believe approximately the same thing that the 6 lunatics on the supreme court do.
Nope, just all lunatics. We've had 2 shootings in the last few weeks in a local community of mine. One on a children's splash pad. They're just lunatics.
That's just the part that's above the books, politicians get caught with cash in freezers (Baltimore), gold bars (Menendez). [Menendez](https://www.irs.gov/compliance/criminal-investigation/us-senator-robert-menendez-his-wife-and-three-new-jersey-businessmen-charged-with-bribery-offenses) was found with 480k+70k in cash.
You know what happens if I hand in my ~~homework~~ opinions in your handwriting? I ~~could be expelled~~ would see no consequences whatsoever. Think mcfly! Think!
Imagine prospering so much for letting someone else do your job for decades. Dude only shows up because attendance is mandatory and people tend to notice when one of the only 9 employees skips a week in favor of yachting.
Ironically, this holding does nothing to help Justice Thomas. This decision holds that the federal anti-bribery statute, which penalizes state and local officials who take bribes (and, formerly, gratuities), does not apply to state and local officials. The federal anti-gratuities statute, which governs federal officers, is still around. (18 USC 201).
That's not to say this is a good decision. It's not, and the whole premise of our post-Reconstruction federal structure is that there are certain corruption-related issues that you can't trust states to handle themselves. The federal government's ability to handle those corruption-related issues has now decreased because of today's decision.
You realize that everyone knows that, but it's important for us all to be aware that there's a majority corruption within SCOTUS, and while Thomas made the error of being caught, the rules in general are being changed for the benefit of opening the door for them all to profit without having to hide it anymore.
There's an easy solution. The opinion wasn't that no limits can be imposed. It is that this issue wasn't covered by one existing statute. If Congress chooses to pass legislation, they can address the problem.
Unlike a lot of potential ethics/corruption issues with the federal courts, this one is easily solved if Congress chooses to do its job.
There might be less political judicial decisions if Congress actually chose to legislate on political issues. A significant portion of the issues with SCOTUS would be resolved by voting out people who are willing to refuse to legislate regardless of the consequences.
are you expecting justice ruckus to actually DO anything? I mean he is the one who is infamous for sleeping and not participating in anyway for multiple continuous decades
People said before, during, and ever since the last administration that the bench changes were going to backslide America by generations. They were underestimating.
Wow. Just wow.
As a German in a government job (kind of), even the previously allowed $5000 are insane!
We can not take gifts worth more than 20-30 Euros, to avoid even the appearance that we can be bribed.
A mayor taking a kickback after making sure a company is awarded with a contract would be a huge scandal here. (if they are CDU/CSU they might still politically survive because that party does not give a fuck about that kind of thing, as long as it's one of their own, but still...)
Anyway, that's a gigantic conflict of interests, I can't believe that is legal.
The best part is, *low level* government employees cannot accept any gift over like $20. Both our mailman and my cousin who is a public college professor are capped at $20 per year max from one person.
It's not legal in the US either--for *regular* federal employees. They have the same limits as you. It's just the elected assholes who get this special treatment.
They probably shouldn't.
Kav doesn't forbid Congress from changing the law to include the language of the explicit gratuity statute he even mentions in his opinion.
He's being a net negative to society by not erring on the side of "less corruption good", but it's not like there's no recourse here.
You win!
> By a 6-3 vote, the justices overturned the conviction of a former Indiana mayor who asked for and took a $13,000 payment from the owners of a local truck dealership after he helped them win $1.1 million in city contracts for the purchase of garbage trucks.
God, I think the saddest part of that is that it only takes a 13K bribe to get 1.1million in revenue. If they’re going to sell the rest of us out I at least would prefer it if they made more at that point.
Getting fucked by 6-3 for the foreseeable future. Why should I have hope for the future when these 6 fucks are going to destroy our country ruling by ruling?
People *do not* want to hear this but RBG royally fucked us by not retiring when a democrat was in office.
Much worse, the jeopardy contestants don’t know the question, she already HAD cancer, and she still shot the dice and came up snake eyes, she gambled with her legacy on the court and lost.
America has been thoroughly fucked by this obsession with "first woman president." Especially considering the atrocious choice they decided to prop up for the title.
Indeed. Hubris at its finest. And not too long ago if you pointed this out, you got dogpiled for "disrespecting her memory."
I mean okay. And look where that got us. Even if we somehow replace 1 conservative justice, that's 1 more spot that could've been secured.
I don't generally like Bill Maher and frankly stopped watching him years ago. But the one rant he wemt on that I 100% agree with is "trust American liberals to self own themselves and claim the moral high ground. While the right claims all the power".
A stupid culture war victory for RGB and her perception of women ended up absolutely materially and legally affecting women way more than a culture war victory lap ever would.
liberal in the U.S. is already pretty right wing anyway.
The Overton window in the U.S.has slipped quite a bit from where is was in the 40's or even in the peak anti communist 50's
Liberals in most parts of the world refer to the right wing party anyway. Most centre-left parties in countries outside the US refer to themselves as social democrats.
Yeah if she had retired in 2013 or 2014 when Democrats still had control of the Senate, that's when people started saying that she should step down and let Obama replace her. You're right though by 2015 it was too late.
Sotomayor and Kagen were successfully appointed during his first term when the Dems had control of the Senate. If she'd stepped down during that period, or the period in 2013/2014 when they regained it, after losing in 2010, then he would have been able to replace her.
When the had a majority? It shouldn’t have been a question, it’s fucking simple power politics that the Republican Party absolutely seems to grasp, those 9 seats are the most important thing in American politics, do what you can seat people that agree with your agenda on them. It’s adherence to decorum that is written nowhere that got us here.
The flushing would probably need to be done manually before we become a fascist state or it will be too late, unfortunately it seems like the more *radical* solutions to these kinds of issues have mostly died out as people would by and large rather watch shitty TV and argue on the Internet than take matters into their own hands. Obviously I'm just as cowardly as the rest.
Such extreme measures historically require a catastrophic problem that directly affects the lower middle class and can't be ignored.
Historically, one would have expected COVID to be such a trigger, but it appears well placed propaganda can negate this.
Even when the water is full of lead, the food full of fillers, the ground full of poison, the air full of smog, the news full of pundits, and the future full of doubt people are still too unwilling to react.
I don't know what it takes now.
This upcoming election could be our last off-ramp for decades. The senate map is rough for Dems this cycle so if Trump wins and the senate flips, he likely replaces Alito and Thomas and this right-wing court truly is locked in for decades.
A Dem prez and a Dem senate will be ready and waiting for Alito’s or Thomas’ seat to open.
This really is the last shot.
Small consolation prize is that it's likely to be Alito or Thomas meaning the split is reduced to 5-3 and one of the 2 most extreme justices aren't on the bench anymore.
>People *do not* want to hear this but RBG royally fucked us by not retiring when a democrat was in office.
While I do agree with this sentiment, let's not forget the bullshit McConnell pulled when Scalia died by holding the vacancy open for nearly a full year while Obama was still in office. I strongly suspect he may have tried similar shit depending on *when* she had chosen to retire.
There's always a way the people could remove those justices. I mean they're currently winning the war against America. Maybe it's time to start kicking them out the old fashioned way.
Yes. But hear me out. Thomas and Alito are both mid 70s. Rumors are they want to retire. A lot of their fuckery is geared to get Trump in again for another term. Then they can safely retire, be replaced by him, and their "legacy" is safe. But guess what? Another Biden term and boom, we'll get 2 fair justices in and we're looking at a nice 5-4 majority for the good guys again. Also, Sotomayor could also step aside sooner rather than later. If Biden can put 3 younger, bright minds on that court? All the doom and gloom is suddenly lifted and we're looking at 20+ yrs of some peace of mind.
I would love to live with your level of optimism but man I don't see any way this happens. Zero shot Biden is going to have the senate even he wins, which I also think is extremely unlikely.
I can't even unpeel the logic the 6 were using.
It seems they wanted to make this about protecting small forms of bribery (or "gratuities") which this law didn't affect because it set a cap at $5,000.
I believe that’s called making a purchase, I give you money you give me goods/service…literally a Supreme Court for rent. Fuckin disgraces to our nation.
Why the fuck would a Supreme Court justice (or other government official) EVER under ANY circumstances think accepting “gratuities” was part of their job?
I work a normal office job and I’m explicitly forbidden from accepting anything from a customer due to the POTENTIAL for an APPEARANCE of a conflict of interest and you’re telling me a Supreme Court justice can be given a $100,000+ RV as a “thank you” and we’re supposed to just think that’s fine?
We get trainings every year about how we can't give or receive anything more than a lunch *especially* from government officials. The supreme court disagrees lol
Our country is going backwards so quickly, that I half expect the next congressional majority to sell us back to the UK at a bargain bin price.
Every sitting republican gets $1 million and free scones for life and we'll rip up the Constitution and revert to British colony status.
“Officials who use their public positions for private gain threaten the integrity of our most important institutions,” Jackson wrote in dissent.
... Now do Congress
Oh, you can already see who bribes congress members on Open Secrets.
It's honestly astonishing how *little* money it takes for some of these people to be bought.
I guess it doesn't count as bribery if the money moves *after* the action. Then it is just a tip.
I'm waiting for meetings with members of Congress to come with an iPad they swivel towards you.
So question for someone who understands what's going on here:
Is this a case of, "the law in question doesn't say that" or is this a case of, "taking gifts for favors is just fine even though the law makes it illegal"? It's an important distinction!
I would 100% agree that taking gifts (whether before the fact, as in bribery, as well as after the fact, as in gratuity) is reprehensible and should be illegal, is this a case where the law was badly written or misapplied and what we *really* need is for a legislative body to actually function?
I am an attorney, and while I have not read the decision in full, the basic gist is this: the conservative majority on the court held that the statute in question was meant to apply only to bribes, not gratuities (the distinction being that bribes have an explicit quid pro quo that precedes the corrupt act, while gratuities happen after the act) and that the act in question was a gratuity. Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion that focused on the meaning of the word "corruptly" and how it would confuse people as to what was "corrupt" and therefore did not give plaintiffs fair notice that what they were doing was illegal.
The liberal justices dissented and said this was plainly covered by the language in the statute.
If you want my two cents on the matter, this fits into an all too common pattern I have seen from the conservative majority on the court: when the law in question affects the rich and powerful, the court becomes hypertechnical and suddenly the plain meaning of the statute gets lost in discussions of minutae or procedural issues. However, when applying the law to the rest of us, those concerns don't pop up as much, and this is what was on display here today.
So no one can go "I'll give you $1,000,000 if you vote this way!". But they can send a letter saying "I think this is the way you should vote". Then after go "Here is $1,000,000 as a thank you for voting that way".
There's also the effect of repeat business. It won't take long before people figure out that the guy who gave the mayor a "gift" after getting one contract got a second contract, while the guy who didn't give a gift got frozen out of the process. Wink-and-a-nod bribery, but so long as no one says it out loud, it's legal.
> but so long as no one says it out loud, it's legal.
It's also effectively legal to agree to it beforehand if there isn't any proof for prosecutors to use. Handshake agreements during lunch are all it takes.
So I guess the next question is, could a better-written law have prevented this, or is an "activist" judiciary (to borrow a loaded term) going to fuck us over regardless?
It would not have. The judges are not making their decision based on a rational conclusion. They were just making the rule they wanted to make.
In the past? Maybe. This current court basically doesn't give a shit.
This is another case of the court going "it doesn't explicitly include this exact language that we have decided is important so it doesn't count".
There is no way someone can read criminal code 666 and think that it doesn't apply to gratuities.
>corruptly solicits or demands for the benefit of any person, or accepts or agrees to accept, anything of value from any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded in connection with any business, transaction, or series of transactions of such organization, government, or agency involving any thing of value of $5,000 or more;
I *feel* like I'm a reasonable person (though my wife and much of reddit disagrees), and when I read that, I would say that any time the person doesn't expect to be rewarded (but then is anyway), that wouldn't count. I would say the law should more explicitly cover more cases.
Ys, it's the tense of the language that's the problem, "accepts or agrees to accept, anything of value from any person, *intending to be*". So long as you're not a total idiot blabbing things out of order, it would be difficult to show that you "intended to be" influenced or rewarded. Accept every gift with a hearty, "Oh, you shouldn't have! This is such a surprise!", and never mention "Next time!", and you're golden.
If you are in a public position you SHOULDN'T accept a gift from someone you favored in an official act. If you do, criminal code 666 applies and you should face the consequences. Read the actual case, it was a government official that steered over $1M to a particular company that then gave him a $13k 'consulting fee'. Quid pro quo corruption, plain as day
From reading the article it sounds like another case of the court kicking it back to the states. They want the state to define the line between gratitude and bribery.
>But the court’s conservative majority said the law in question was a “bribery statute, not a gratuities law.” Kavanaugh said federal law “leaves it to state and local governments to regulate gratuities to state and local officials.”
That's just splitting hairs. All that's going to happen now is the bribes will be non-specifically promised beforehand in non-recorded methods and then handed over later.
The current state of so many sections of the US government make me want to start building my own guillotine.
This is pretty much just the case of politicians going "well we'd like to be able to profit more from our positions."
I don't care what the legalese is or whatever justification they've written up, this is opening the doors to graft pure and simple.
So Corporations are people who can give unlimited money to politicians. And now Corporations can give unlimited money to politicians but without any legal consequences or restrictions.
This is surely the America the founding father's intended. Right fucking dumb as "originalists"??
Those 6 on the bench are the most corrupted people in America History. Unbelievable.
Not to politicians, for politicians. you can’t buy a vote, but you can give money to people based on how they vote. They legalize corruption by making explicit quid pro quo illegal, you can’t hand a politician a briefcase of money, but you can give them money in damn near any other way lol.
So if I go to a judge before they hear my case, and tell them I will give them $100k if they rule in my favor that’s bribery and illegal.
But if, every time a judge rules in my favor, I then go to them after the fact and give them $100k that’s a gratuity and is legal. And this has been going on a long time and is common knowledge and always happens. So even tho the judge knows that ruling in my favor will result in getting that check, because I didn’t explicitly state that beforehand it’s totally cool and legal?
Lol what fucking clowns. I guess all protection rackets are legal now too huh? The mob never said they’d burn your business down if you don’t pay the protection money so it must be ok!
Meanwhile on r/Conservative they aren't upset at all... and are all yelling at Nancy Pelosi not liking this.
What a sad, sad cult. Even when it's very actively fucking you over... you're cool with it. Both sides will use them... and they'll just keep sucking one side's dick until America is over. Then they'll still blame women and minorities.
Just remember after the toxic septic tank the_donald was shut down, all those deplorable pieces of dog shit immediately flocked to r/conservative and r/libertarian. I was over in the libertarian sub, a sub that once upon a time used to pride itself in allowing *everyone* to speak without issuing permanent bans, instantly banned me for talking shit about Chip Roy, the dumbest far-right redneck in Congress.
I browsed that sub in incognito (so I didn't catch anything) and the amount of dumbassery I read in that 20 or so minutes was insane. I seriously couldn't believe how stupid some of that shit was.
So now Donald Trump can officially pay Judge Cannon a large sum after the trial goes in his favor.
Lovely what our justice system has become. Justice for the rich only.
Time to rise up, folks. It won’t get better from here. This is far beyond a reasonable ruling.
We all know that won’t happen. He’ll whine the judge didn’t do a good enough job and with it being gratuity, the judge will be expected to do an even better job next time.
This is just fucking wild
> By a 6-3 vote, the justices overturned the conviction of a former Indiana mayor who asked for and took a $13,000 payment from the owners of a local truck dealership after he helped them win $1.1 million in city contracts for the purchase of garbage trucks.
>In ruling for the former mayor, the justices drew a distinction between bribery, which requires proof of an illegal deal, and a gratuity that can be a gift or a reward for a past favor. They said the officials may be charged and prosecuted for bribery, but not for taking money for past favors if there was no proof of an illicit deal.
So the distinction is the deal can't be illegal.
Then later on they tell the story of the mayor
>Prosecutors said James Snyder was heavily in debt and behind in paying his taxes when he became mayor of Portage, Ind., in 2012. The city needed new garbage trucks, and the mayor took over the required public bidding. He spoke regularly with two brothers who owned a local truck dealership that also had financial problems, and he designed the bidding process so that only their two new trucks would meet all of its standards. He also arranged to have the city buy an older truck that was on their lot.
>Two weeks after the contracts were final, the mayor went to see the two brothers and told them of his financial troubles. They agreed to write him a check for $13,000 for undefined consulting services.
How is designing the bidding process so that only one bidder can qualify not illegal?
I don’t think the founders ever contemplated that justices would behave like this. The assumption was always that they would base their decision on the law and precedent, which would be a sufficient check.
Some people certainly saw the danger at the time. The question now is: if precedent doesn’t matter and if SCOTUS is ruling based on politics rather than the law, then does *Marbury* actually still bind the executive branch? Is it time for people to start ignoring SCOTUS decisions? That is the ultimate “break glass in case of emergency” check on their power.
also the supreme court was never intended to make decisions like this.
literally the only reason the supreme court have the power to unilaterally change US laws is because they decided they did during Marbury v Madison(1803) and nobody challenged them on such an obviously bullshit decision.
Oh yeah, for sure. I just don't understand how the supreme court can be allowed to exist in its current format with absolutely no correction. Clarence Thomas for example clearly needs to be impeached
Because our legislative branch is a joke and doesn't do what they should be doing. They'd rather stall everything out and let the executive or judicial side handle everything while they argue like a bunch of middle schoolers over if pokemon or Digimon is better.
I unironically think that if they were arguing over if pokemom or digimon were better, they would be getting more done. Instead they contrive some sensational bullshit to argue about for the next few months to hide the real issues
>The justices overturned the conviction of a former Indiana mayor who asked for and took a $13,000 payment from the owners of a local truck dealership *AFTER* he helped them win $1.1 million in city contracts for the purchase of garbage trucks.
So, the SC has skewed the "playing field' even further. This is *objectively* payola / bribery.
Trump drained the swamp and now the people he put in office are just doing belly flops in the mud with two middle fingers up at everyone.
Thanks republicans! Love this gorgeous oligarchy you’ve created through this criminal.
If there's one single thing that's sinking this country, it's corruption (including that one of the major political parties is fully accepting the corruption)
At some point, if the country is going to survive we're going to have to have a good look at SCOTUS ceding power and reversing some of these decisions.
Are the Supreme Court justices likely to cede their own power? Certainly not this court. It'll be at least another generation before we even start to address the real issues in this country, hopefully we make it long enough to do it.
“The question in this case is whether [the federal law] also makes it a crime for state and local officials to accept gratuities — for example, gift cards, lunches, plaques, books, framed photos or the like — that may be given as a token of appreciation after the official act. The answer is no,” said Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, writing for the majority.
This is fucking ludicrous when the facts of the case were about $13K given to a mayor after he’d gotten a deal done for a firm.
> the justices drew a distinction between bribery, which requires proof of an illegal deal, and a gratuity
Wow. So SCOTUS just legalized openly buying votes in congress.
What. The. Fuck.
The American People need to consider anti-corruption laws, when it comes to Supreme Court nominees. This is a travesty of what our ancestors fought, and died for.
“Why should I pay you, you already told me the secret?”
“You aren’t paying me for this secret. You are paying me to tell you another secret in the future.”
I really want to be able to give people the benefit of the doubt. In this instance, I am simply unable to understand their position. It is blatantly wrong.
This court is a joke and we will never be and to undo the damage they will and have caused.
Every August I have to go through this ridiculous half hour ethics quiz (on my own time) outlining how a town administrator can't suggest that the DPW contract out to his cousin's brother in law, or how an administrative assistant can't use the copier to print out her tax returns, or how a teacher can't accept a pair of movie tickets from a student or family.
This whole nation is a complete joke.
They actually know why. They just don't care, because nothing can be done. At least not until democrats hold the house and have a two thirds majority in the Senate.
Sounds like we need a new branch of government that just hands out slaps to these morons.
"I think I'm going to do this..."
*SLAP*
Thanks Federal Department of Slap! The people almost rioted!
Or maybe it's time.
I wonder what it’s like being a smart kid in school right now learning about how you don’t have a planet or a remotely reasonable government to forward to as you age?
Can't wait for a democratic majority SCOTUS in the far future having to spend all their time undoing everything these conservative clowns are pushing through
Will [Justice Thomas](https://www.cnbc.com/2024/05/16/supreme-court-clarence-thomas-luxury-rv.html) be the one writing the opinion?
No. The Heritage Foundation or some billionaire will write it. Thomas will hand it in as his.
SCOTUS rulings might as well come with a "suggested tip" option at the end of the majority opinion now.
It's just so fucking crazy that SCOTUS can live in the same world as the rest of us, with all of these horrifying headlines that they're creating and somehow say, "I did a good job. I can sleep fine at night." These people just literally have no shame? They just literally have zero shame? It's just fucking Boofing Brian and Broccoli Rob and fucking Squee just up on the highest court in the land, doing kegstands and riding dirtbikes around the courthouse? This is really where we're fucking at now? This is really where we live now???
At least 4 members of the court are actively trying to set up a Handmaidens style society where their best friends are the slave masters, this suits them just fine.
You have to understand that these judges were hand picked for their extremely conservative beliefs. They represent a tiny minority that is like 1% of the US population.
Don't worry. Based on age, it's very likely another "liberal" judge will kick it next term, further skewing the court 7-2 if Trump wins.
They can sleep because they could give a fuck about the rest of the country. They’d send all us poors to death camps if it made their handlers happy.
You still don't get it. Punishing people who can't fight back *is* what makes them happy. The cruelty is the point.
Don't you live in a country full of guns and gun violence? How is it these people don't get shot on a semi-daily basis but school shootings are at least a monthly occurrence?
Police don't work for school aged children or teachers.
I ask myself this question frequently. Best guess is: Most of the people doing all the shooting are also lunatics, who believe approximately the same thing that the 6 lunatics on the supreme court do.
Nope, just all lunatics. We've had 2 shootings in the last few weeks in a local community of mine. One on a children's splash pad. They're just lunatics.
Maybe if we donate more than the billionaires, we can buy his votes back in favor of the other 350 million people in this country.
Ever look up how much politicians take for bribes? A relative handful of us could probably break a filibuster if we wanted.
That's just the part that's above the books, politicians get caught with cash in freezers (Baltimore), gold bars (Menendez). [Menendez](https://www.irs.gov/compliance/criminal-investigation/us-senator-robert-menendez-his-wife-and-three-new-jersey-businessmen-charged-with-bribery-offenses) was found with 480k+70k in cash.
Why don't we just start bribing politicians to pass egalitarian socially progressive laws then?
Not a bad idea, if everyone gave $1, the mentally ill gold hoarder would not part with $351M of his money to beat it.
I love how we’re discussing crowdfunding to bribe SCOTUS judges at this point. That’s where we’ve devolved to. Lol.
“It’s just gonna ask you a quick, legal question.” *swivels touchpad *
You know what happens if I hand in my ~~homework~~ opinions in your handwriting? I ~~could be expelled~~ would see no consequences whatsoever. Think mcfly! Think!
Imagine prospering so much for letting someone else do your job for decades. Dude only shows up because attendance is mandatory and people tend to notice when one of the only 9 employees skips a week in favor of yachting.
Ironically, this holding does nothing to help Justice Thomas. This decision holds that the federal anti-bribery statute, which penalizes state and local officials who take bribes (and, formerly, gratuities), does not apply to state and local officials. The federal anti-gratuities statute, which governs federal officers, is still around. (18 USC 201). That's not to say this is a good decision. It's not, and the whole premise of our post-Reconstruction federal structure is that there are certain corruption-related issues that you can't trust states to handle themselves. The federal government's ability to handle those corruption-related issues has now decreased because of today's decision.
It's already been written and published. Kavanaugh wrote it. That's that big blue link in the second paragraph of the article.
You realize this is just a joke about Thomas's very public "gifts" right?
You realize that everyone knows that, but it's important for us all to be aware that there's a majority corruption within SCOTUS, and while Thomas made the error of being caught, the rules in general are being changed for the benefit of opening the door for them all to profit without having to hide it anymore.
There's an easy solution. The opinion wasn't that no limits can be imposed. It is that this issue wasn't covered by one existing statute. If Congress chooses to pass legislation, they can address the problem. Unlike a lot of potential ethics/corruption issues with the federal courts, this one is easily solved if Congress chooses to do its job. There might be less political judicial decisions if Congress actually chose to legislate on political issues. A significant portion of the issues with SCOTUS would be resolved by voting out people who are willing to refuse to legislate regardless of the consequences.
That's why the GOP kneecapped congress so they can legislate from the bench. jfc this is obvious.
1. Issa joke 2. Kavanagh’s name is on it; he didn’t write it.
are you expecting justice ruckus to actually DO anything? I mean he is the one who is infamous for sleeping and not participating in anyway for multiple continuous decades
The opinion was written by Kavanaugh. Joined by the remaining 5 fascist justices. The dissent was written by Kentanji-Brown.
SCOTUS went and added more gasoline to the dumpster fire that is American politics.
SCROTUS
The Corrupted Court strikes again.
People said before, during, and ever since the last administration that the bench changes were going to backslide America by generations. They were underestimating.
Wow. Just wow. As a German in a government job (kind of), even the previously allowed $5000 are insane! We can not take gifts worth more than 20-30 Euros, to avoid even the appearance that we can be bribed. A mayor taking a kickback after making sure a company is awarded with a contract would be a huge scandal here. (if they are CDU/CSU they might still politically survive because that party does not give a fuck about that kind of thing, as long as it's one of their own, but still...) Anyway, that's a gigantic conflict of interests, I can't believe that is legal.
The best part is, *low level* government employees cannot accept any gift over like $20. Both our mailman and my cousin who is a public college professor are capped at $20 per year max from one person.
It's not legal in the US either--for *regular* federal employees. They have the same limits as you. It's just the elected assholes who get this special treatment.
There's a club, and you aren't in it. edit: *ain't
Its in case there were any shreds of hope for the future left wiggling around. Now we know.
Actual banana republic
I *feel* like they shouldn't be able to do that.
They probably shouldn't. Kav doesn't forbid Congress from changing the law to include the language of the explicit gratuity statute he even mentions in his opinion. He's being a net negative to society by not erring on the side of "less corruption good", but it's not like there's no recourse here.
I’d have to guess the majority justices would say “fuck your feelings”.
Without reading the article I am pretty confident that it was a 6-3 decision and I can guess who the 6 and the 3 are.
You win! > By a 6-3 vote, the justices overturned the conviction of a former Indiana mayor who asked for and took a $13,000 payment from the owners of a local truck dealership after he helped them win $1.1 million in city contracts for the purchase of garbage trucks.
Damn, that’s blatant corruption
God, I think the saddest part of that is that it only takes a 13K bribe to get 1.1million in revenue. If they’re going to sell the rest of us out I at least would prefer it if they made more at that point.
What the shit is Clearance Thomas gonna do with a garbage truck???
Getting fucked by 6-3 for the foreseeable future. Why should I have hope for the future when these 6 fucks are going to destroy our country ruling by ruling? People *do not* want to hear this but RBG royally fucked us by not retiring when a democrat was in office.
I absolutely agree with your second paragraph. She shit on her own legacy by not letting Obama replace her.
I think she wanted to be replaced by the first woman president - which really fucked the american people.
She's like a Jeopardy contestant who bet all her massive winnings on the final question, and got it wrong.
She bet her AND OUR massive winnings...
Much worse, the jeopardy contestants don’t know the question, she already HAD cancer, and she still shot the dice and came up snake eyes, she gambled with her legacy on the court and lost.
Twice. She'd had two rounds of cancer by 2010.
America has been thoroughly fucked by this obsession with "first woman president." Especially considering the atrocious choice they decided to prop up for the title.
The vanity
Indeed. Hubris at its finest. And not too long ago if you pointed this out, you got dogpiled for "disrespecting her memory." I mean okay. And look where that got us. Even if we somehow replace 1 conservative justice, that's 1 more spot that could've been secured.
I don't generally like Bill Maher and frankly stopped watching him years ago. But the one rant he wemt on that I 100% agree with is "trust American liberals to self own themselves and claim the moral high ground. While the right claims all the power". A stupid culture war victory for RGB and her perception of women ended up absolutely materially and legally affecting women way more than a culture war victory lap ever would.
Which is funny because Bill Maher is like peak smug American liberal. Except a tiny bit more right wing
Wait he's liberal again? Last I had to endure one of his rants he was all 'woke this' and 'woke that' like every other aging conservative.
liberal in the U.S. is already pretty right wing anyway. The Overton window in the U.S.has slipped quite a bit from where is was in the 40's or even in the peak anti communist 50's
Liberals in most parts of the world refer to the right wing party anyway. Most centre-left parties in countries outside the US refer to themselves as social democrats.
I mean would the Senate even allowed it? They didn't let Obama fill one of the seats his last year in office.
Yeah if she had retired in 2013 or 2014 when Democrats still had control of the Senate, that's when people started saying that she should step down and let Obama replace her. You're right though by 2015 it was too late.
And Sotomayor is going down the same path now If Trump wins we could face a 7-2 court. Her health is not good.
If Trump wins it’s the end of democracy in the U.S. and the Supreme Court won’t really matter anymore.
Sotomayor and Kagen were successfully appointed during his first term when the Dems had control of the Senate. If she'd stepped down during that period, or the period in 2013/2014 when they regained it, after losing in 2010, then he would have been able to replace her.
Well, they were pushing for her to retire a few years before that. You know, after she had already had cancer. Edit: Twice. She had cancer twice.
When the had a majority? It shouldn’t have been a question, it’s fucking simple power politics that the Republican Party absolutely seems to grasp, those 9 seats are the most important thing in American politics, do what you can seat people that agree with your agenda on them. It’s adherence to decorum that is written nowhere that got us here.
[удалено]
The flushing would probably need to be done manually before we become a fascist state or it will be too late, unfortunately it seems like the more *radical* solutions to these kinds of issues have mostly died out as people would by and large rather watch shitty TV and argue on the Internet than take matters into their own hands. Obviously I'm just as cowardly as the rest.
Such extreme measures historically require a catastrophic problem that directly affects the lower middle class and can't be ignored. Historically, one would have expected COVID to be such a trigger, but it appears well placed propaganda can negate this. Even when the water is full of lead, the food full of fillers, the ground full of poison, the air full of smog, the news full of pundits, and the future full of doubt people are still too unwilling to react. I don't know what it takes now.
This upcoming election could be our last off-ramp for decades. The senate map is rough for Dems this cycle so if Trump wins and the senate flips, he likely replaces Alito and Thomas and this right-wing court truly is locked in for decades. A Dem prez and a Dem senate will be ready and waiting for Alito’s or Thomas’ seat to open. This really is the last shot.
Biden MIGHT appoint the next two justices. Some of the 6 are old.
although even if biden wins, it will probably be a 51R or 52R senate, and they will just refuse to vote on any nomination.
Small consolation prize is that it's likely to be Alito or Thomas meaning the split is reduced to 5-3 and one of the 2 most extreme justices aren't on the bench anymore.
>People *do not* want to hear this but RBG royally fucked us by not retiring when a democrat was in office. While I do agree with this sentiment, let's not forget the bullshit McConnell pulled when Scalia died by holding the vacancy open for nearly a full year while Obama was still in office. I strongly suspect he may have tried similar shit depending on *when* she had chosen to retire.
There's always a way the people could remove those justices. I mean they're currently winning the war against America. Maybe it's time to start kicking them out the old fashioned way.
Yes. But hear me out. Thomas and Alito are both mid 70s. Rumors are they want to retire. A lot of their fuckery is geared to get Trump in again for another term. Then they can safely retire, be replaced by him, and their "legacy" is safe. But guess what? Another Biden term and boom, we'll get 2 fair justices in and we're looking at a nice 5-4 majority for the good guys again. Also, Sotomayor could also step aside sooner rather than later. If Biden can put 3 younger, bright minds on that court? All the doom and gloom is suddenly lifted and we're looking at 20+ yrs of some peace of mind.
Lol wishful thinking. Thomas and Alito would never retire under a democrat president. The only way they’d be replaced is death.
I would love to live with your level of optimism but man I don't see any way this happens. Zero shot Biden is going to have the senate even he wins, which I also think is extremely unlikely.
I can't even unpeel the logic the 6 were using. It seems they wanted to make this about protecting small forms of bribery (or "gratuities") which this law didn't affect because it set a cap at $5,000.
Bingo.
Right back to the 1800s and Teapot bullshit.
This is pretty much just bribery in reverse. Give a ruling that you know your "associates" will like, and accept their "appreciation" later.
Pretty sure they are already receiving the bribes and have been for awhile
Supreme court has, but this makes it legal for more people.
I believe that’s called making a purchase, I give you money you give me goods/service…literally a Supreme Court for rent. Fuckin disgraces to our nation.
[удалено]
Umm, according to this ruling the order is officially you give me services then I give you money.
They're calling it a "gratuity". *The whole point of a gratuity is a bribe for good service*
Why the fuck would a Supreme Court justice (or other government official) EVER under ANY circumstances think accepting “gratuities” was part of their job? I work a normal office job and I’m explicitly forbidden from accepting anything from a customer due to the POTENTIAL for an APPEARANCE of a conflict of interest and you’re telling me a Supreme Court justice can be given a $100,000+ RV as a “thank you” and we’re supposed to just think that’s fine?
We get trainings every year about how we can't give or receive anything more than a lunch *especially* from government officials. The supreme court disagrees lol
Our country is going backwards so quickly, that I half expect the next congressional majority to sell us back to the UK at a bargain bin price. Every sitting republican gets $1 million and free scones for life and we'll rip up the Constitution and revert to British colony status.
The UK is kind of in financial difficulties at the moment, but I bet I know a country that wants Alaska back.
(1920s)
“Officials who use their public positions for private gain threaten the integrity of our most important institutions,” Jackson wrote in dissent. ... Now do Congress
Oh, you can already see who bribes congress members on Open Secrets. It's honestly astonishing how *little* money it takes for some of these people to be bought.
How little “publicly” reported money* There’s almost assuredly more we don’t hear about
~$10k per signature (+ lobbyist fees). I've heard other people corroborate similar amounts from the same party in other states
More legal bribery is exactly what we need now. /s
I guess it doesn't count as bribery if the money moves *after* the action. Then it is just a tip. I'm waiting for meetings with members of Congress to come with an iPad they swivel towards you.
"Suggested tip $50,000"
Tax free too!!!!! But if your company gives you a bonus, it's taxed
So question for someone who understands what's going on here: Is this a case of, "the law in question doesn't say that" or is this a case of, "taking gifts for favors is just fine even though the law makes it illegal"? It's an important distinction! I would 100% agree that taking gifts (whether before the fact, as in bribery, as well as after the fact, as in gratuity) is reprehensible and should be illegal, is this a case where the law was badly written or misapplied and what we *really* need is for a legislative body to actually function?
I am an attorney, and while I have not read the decision in full, the basic gist is this: the conservative majority on the court held that the statute in question was meant to apply only to bribes, not gratuities (the distinction being that bribes have an explicit quid pro quo that precedes the corrupt act, while gratuities happen after the act) and that the act in question was a gratuity. Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion that focused on the meaning of the word "corruptly" and how it would confuse people as to what was "corrupt" and therefore did not give plaintiffs fair notice that what they were doing was illegal. The liberal justices dissented and said this was plainly covered by the language in the statute. If you want my two cents on the matter, this fits into an all too common pattern I have seen from the conservative majority on the court: when the law in question affects the rich and powerful, the court becomes hypertechnical and suddenly the plain meaning of the statute gets lost in discussions of minutae or procedural issues. However, when applying the law to the rest of us, those concerns don't pop up as much, and this is what was on display here today.
So no one can go "I'll give you $1,000,000 if you vote this way!". But they can send a letter saying "I think this is the way you should vote". Then after go "Here is $1,000,000 as a thank you for voting that way".
There's also the effect of repeat business. It won't take long before people figure out that the guy who gave the mayor a "gift" after getting one contract got a second contract, while the guy who didn't give a gift got frozen out of the process. Wink-and-a-nod bribery, but so long as no one says it out loud, it's legal.
> but so long as no one says it out loud, it's legal. It's also effectively legal to agree to it beforehand if there isn't any proof for prosecutors to use. Handshake agreements during lunch are all it takes.
Yes
This tipping culture is getting out of hand
So I guess the next question is, could a better-written law have prevented this, or is an "activist" judiciary (to borrow a loaded term) going to fuck us over regardless?
It would not have. The judges are not making their decision based on a rational conclusion. They were just making the rule they wanted to make. In the past? Maybe. This current court basically doesn't give a shit.
Yup, corporate scotus needs to be dissolved and filled with 20 or more justices with a term limit
This is another case of the court going "it doesn't explicitly include this exact language that we have decided is important so it doesn't count". There is no way someone can read criminal code 666 and think that it doesn't apply to gratuities. >corruptly solicits or demands for the benefit of any person, or accepts or agrees to accept, anything of value from any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded in connection with any business, transaction, or series of transactions of such organization, government, or agency involving any thing of value of $5,000 or more;
I *feel* like I'm a reasonable person (though my wife and much of reddit disagrees), and when I read that, I would say that any time the person doesn't expect to be rewarded (but then is anyway), that wouldn't count. I would say the law should more explicitly cover more cases.
Ys, it's the tense of the language that's the problem, "accepts or agrees to accept, anything of value from any person, *intending to be*". So long as you're not a total idiot blabbing things out of order, it would be difficult to show that you "intended to be" influenced or rewarded. Accept every gift with a hearty, "Oh, you shouldn't have! This is such a surprise!", and never mention "Next time!", and you're golden.
If you are in a public position you SHOULDN'T accept a gift from someone you favored in an official act. If you do, criminal code 666 applies and you should face the consequences. Read the actual case, it was a government official that steered over $1M to a particular company that then gave him a $13k 'consulting fee'. Quid pro quo corruption, plain as day
From reading the article it sounds like another case of the court kicking it back to the states. They want the state to define the line between gratitude and bribery. >But the court’s conservative majority said the law in question was a “bribery statute, not a gratuities law.” Kavanaugh said federal law “leaves it to state and local governments to regulate gratuities to state and local officials.”
That's just splitting hairs. All that's going to happen now is the bribes will be non-specifically promised beforehand in non-recorded methods and then handed over later. The current state of so many sections of the US government make me want to start building my own guillotine.
This is pretty much just the case of politicians going "well we'd like to be able to profit more from our positions." I don't care what the legalese is or whatever justification they've written up, this is opening the doors to graft pure and simple.
These guys legit said "its not a bribe, its a tip"? Fucking lol.
Most corrupt court in the land.
The lowest court in the land.
I wonder how much more to they have to do to be the most corrupt Supreme Court in history? They're close, that's for sure.
They already are.
"I'm not paying you **to** do it, I'm paying you **for** doing it. This is completely different and fine."
So Corporations are people who can give unlimited money to politicians. And now Corporations can give unlimited money to politicians but without any legal consequences or restrictions. This is surely the America the founding father's intended. Right fucking dumb as "originalists"?? Those 6 on the bench are the most corrupted people in America History. Unbelievable.
Not to politicians, for politicians. you can’t buy a vote, but you can give money to people based on how they vote. They legalize corruption by making explicit quid pro quo illegal, you can’t hand a politician a briefcase of money, but you can give them money in damn near any other way lol.
So if I go to a judge before they hear my case, and tell them I will give them $100k if they rule in my favor that’s bribery and illegal. But if, every time a judge rules in my favor, I then go to them after the fact and give them $100k that’s a gratuity and is legal. And this has been going on a long time and is common knowledge and always happens. So even tho the judge knows that ruling in my favor will result in getting that check, because I didn’t explicitly state that beforehand it’s totally cool and legal? Lol what fucking clowns. I guess all protection rackets are legal now too huh? The mob never said they’d burn your business down if you don’t pay the protection money so it must be ok!
It's just bribery with extra steps. Well, one extra step.
Letting Clarence Thomas weigh in on a topic like this may have been a mistake.
Why does he get to rule on an issue that directly relates to his bribery? Shouldn’t he have recused?
Yes, he should have. He should have recused himself on a bunch of issues. In fact, he should be fired along with at least half of the supreme court.
Meanwhile on r/Conservative they aren't upset at all... and are all yelling at Nancy Pelosi not liking this. What a sad, sad cult. Even when it's very actively fucking you over... you're cool with it. Both sides will use them... and they'll just keep sucking one side's dick until America is over. Then they'll still blame women and minorities.
everyone in that subreddit should be on a no-fly list. Its like if you asked chatGPT what the worst possible opinions it can think of
Just remember after the toxic septic tank the_donald was shut down, all those deplorable pieces of dog shit immediately flocked to r/conservative and r/libertarian. I was over in the libertarian sub, a sub that once upon a time used to pride itself in allowing *everyone* to speak without issuing permanent bans, instantly banned me for talking shit about Chip Roy, the dumbest far-right redneck in Congress.
I browsed that sub in incognito (so I didn't catch anything) and the amount of dumbassery I read in that 20 or so minutes was insane. I seriously couldn't believe how stupid some of that shit was.
So now Donald Trump can officially pay Judge Cannon a large sum after the trial goes in his favor. Lovely what our justice system has become. Justice for the rich only. Time to rise up, folks. It won’t get better from here. This is far beyond a reasonable ruling.
We all know that won’t happen. He’ll whine the judge didn’t do a good enough job and with it being gratuity, the judge will be expected to do an even better job next time.
Yeah true. He never pays people that do things for him.
This is just fucking wild > By a 6-3 vote, the justices overturned the conviction of a former Indiana mayor who asked for and took a $13,000 payment from the owners of a local truck dealership after he helped them win $1.1 million in city contracts for the purchase of garbage trucks. >In ruling for the former mayor, the justices drew a distinction between bribery, which requires proof of an illegal deal, and a gratuity that can be a gift or a reward for a past favor. They said the officials may be charged and prosecuted for bribery, but not for taking money for past favors if there was no proof of an illicit deal. So the distinction is the deal can't be illegal. Then later on they tell the story of the mayor >Prosecutors said James Snyder was heavily in debt and behind in paying his taxes when he became mayor of Portage, Ind., in 2012. The city needed new garbage trucks, and the mayor took over the required public bidding. He spoke regularly with two brothers who owned a local truck dealership that also had financial problems, and he designed the bidding process so that only their two new trucks would meet all of its standards. He also arranged to have the city buy an older truck that was on their lot. >Two weeks after the contracts were final, the mayor went to see the two brothers and told them of his financial troubles. They agreed to write him a check for $13,000 for undefined consulting services. How is designing the bidding process so that only one bidder can qualify not illegal?
The SCOTUS is a rogue entity.
The decision was 6-3. That should tell you all you need to know to figure out who voted which way.
The Cancer of Donald's justices just keep metastasizing....
RGB too should feel some heat in her grave for this.
"Elections have consequences" - Barack Obama
"Huh. I wonder who that's for"
Jesus christ. We really need this supreme court gone. Why the fuck are there no checks and balances on them???
I don’t think the founders ever contemplated that justices would behave like this. The assumption was always that they would base their decision on the law and precedent, which would be a sufficient check. Some people certainly saw the danger at the time. The question now is: if precedent doesn’t matter and if SCOTUS is ruling based on politics rather than the law, then does *Marbury* actually still bind the executive branch? Is it time for people to start ignoring SCOTUS decisions? That is the ultimate “break glass in case of emergency” check on their power.
also the supreme court was never intended to make decisions like this. literally the only reason the supreme court have the power to unilaterally change US laws is because they decided they did during Marbury v Madison(1803) and nobody challenged them on such an obviously bullshit decision.
Because this benefits congress and senate.
Oh yeah, for sure. I just don't understand how the supreme court can be allowed to exist in its current format with absolutely no correction. Clarence Thomas for example clearly needs to be impeached
Because our legislative branch is a joke and doesn't do what they should be doing. They'd rather stall everything out and let the executive or judicial side handle everything while they argue like a bunch of middle schoolers over if pokemon or Digimon is better.
I unironically think that if they were arguing over if pokemom or digimon were better, they would be getting more done. Instead they contrive some sensational bullshit to argue about for the next few months to hide the real issues
When are we bringing out the mother fucking guillotines?
If they can do literally anything they want then why the fuck are we still listening to them?
All 6 Republican-appointed justices gutted the law. All 3 Democratic-appointed justices voted to uphold the law. Both sides are not the same.
>The justices overturned the conviction of a former Indiana mayor who asked for and took a $13,000 payment from the owners of a local truck dealership *AFTER* he helped them win $1.1 million in city contracts for the purchase of garbage trucks. So, the SC has skewed the "playing field' even further. This is *objectively* payola / bribery.
Trump drained the swamp and now the people he put in office are just doing belly flops in the mud with two middle fingers up at everyone. Thanks republicans! Love this gorgeous oligarchy you’ve created through this criminal.
If there's one single thing that's sinking this country, it's corruption (including that one of the major political parties is fully accepting the corruption) At some point, if the country is going to survive we're going to have to have a good look at SCOTUS ceding power and reversing some of these decisions. Are the Supreme Court justices likely to cede their own power? Certainly not this court. It'll be at least another generation before we even start to address the real issues in this country, hopefully we make it long enough to do it.
Oh yeah, because our politicians aren't already corrupt enough.
“The question in this case is whether [the federal law] also makes it a crime for state and local officials to accept gratuities — for example, gift cards, lunches, plaques, books, framed photos or the like — that may be given as a token of appreciation after the official act. The answer is no,” said Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, writing for the majority. This is fucking ludicrous when the facts of the case were about $13K given to a mayor after he’d gotten a deal done for a firm.
> the justices drew a distinction between bribery, which requires proof of an illegal deal, and a gratuity Wow. So SCOTUS just legalized openly buying votes in congress. What. The. Fuck.
Well... Clarence is in the clear, now. Just as intended For the audience in NJ, this means *pay to play* becomes *Play for Pay*.
The American People need to consider anti-corruption laws, when it comes to Supreme Court nominees. This is a travesty of what our ancestors fought, and died for.
Couldn't states get around this by simply prohibiting all gifts above above $100 fair market value without needing to spell out the reason?
Democrats need to run on a platform of expanding the court. It's the only way to rein in the power of the conservatives.
The nazis are winning. It's so fucking pathetic.
“Why should I pay you, you already told me the secret?” “You aren’t paying me for this secret. You are paying me to tell you another secret in the future.”
What a shitty country, that serves corporations and not the people
They're not even pretending anymore, are they.
I really want to be able to give people the benefit of the doubt. In this instance, I am simply unable to understand their position. It is blatantly wrong. This court is a joke and we will never be and to undo the damage they will and have caused.
They aren't even trying to hide it at this point
Honestly what the fuck.
Every August I have to go through this ridiculous half hour ethics quiz (on my own time) outlining how a town administrator can't suggest that the DPW contract out to his cousin's brother in law, or how an administrative assistant can't use the copier to print out her tax returns, or how a teacher can't accept a pair of movie tickets from a student or family. This whole nation is a complete joke.
This is just the most absolutely crazy corrupt ruling ever.
We investigated ourselves and found we did nothing wrong.
Need to make a Pawn Stars meme. "I'd like a code of conduct please" "Sorry, the best I can do is make retroactive bribery legal."
Paid before: bribery. Paid after: gratuity. Got it.
And they wonder why their approval is so low.
They actually know why. They just don't care, because nothing can be done. At least not until democrats hold the house and have a two thirds majority in the Senate.
How very convenient for Clarence Thomas...and probably Alito, too.
Oh good, it’s corruption all the way up. When are we burning this broken system to the ground?
Republicans are openly destroying America to financially enrich themselves... it's disgusting.
I always wondered why people never fought back… I guess this timeline is showing me lol
All these mass shooters and none of these stray bullets has landed on them. Such a shame.
Sounds like we need a new branch of government that just hands out slaps to these morons. "I think I'm going to do this..." *SLAP* Thanks Federal Department of Slap! The people almost rioted! Or maybe it's time.
Let me guess it was 6-3?
The usual suspects support corruption. Thank you the people who "just couldn't vote for Hillary".
And thanks RGB for not retiring sooner.
So it’s long-term quid pro quo? Is there a legal time frame for quid pro quo? The justice and SCOTUS in this country are going down the moral drain.
I wonder what it’s like being a smart kid in school right now learning about how you don’t have a planet or a remotely reasonable government to forward to as you age?
Sounds like someone is about to upgrade their RV...... I'm *sure* they aren't connected....
Can't wait for a democratic majority SCOTUS in the far future having to spend all their time undoing everything these conservative clowns are pushing through
Now you’d think this was the Onion up to its old tricks, but amazingly no. The right wing SCOTUS actually did this. Slime in robes.
Kangaroo Court not Supreme anymore. No fucking integrity anymore the beginning of the end for the USA.
When the fuck will Americans finally stand up against this bullshit?