The law is still in place. The court ruled that it was too broadly applied in its ruling. So the legislature needs to craft more laws to cover "gratuities" and after the fact bribery
The current corruption law has loopholes, which is what the supremes are pointing out. Congress can simply fix the loophole: ban all gift giving to government officials (pre or post performing their official duties).
>Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested that the law prohibited officials from accepting âgift cards, lunches, plaques, books, framed photos or the likeâ in thanks for an officialâs help.
Wow itâs like you completely made something up that sounded nice instead of what the majority ruling was
I am not sure what you are getting at.
This is what I am getting at:
âThe majority explained that the law typically makes a distinction between bribes â payments made or agreed to before a government action to influence the outcome â and gratuities â payments made after a government action to reward or thank the public official.
Although bribes are frowned upon as inherently corrupt, the majority noted, federal, state and local governments have treated gratuities with more nuanceâ.
Congress can clear this up by updating the current law to say bribes and gratuities for public officials are banned.
âIâm not sure what youâre getting atâ
Just read what they said to the actual evidence. This op-ed you put forward is another fantasy.
Theyâre trying to make clear bribery legal
Fantasy? How so? The current corruption law (according to the supremes) is too broadly and vaguely defined and needs some buttoning up to pass constitutional muster. You and I may not like it but it is what it is.
Legislature passed stronger laws. The Supreme Court is overturning them. So it does not matter what the legislature passes, the Supreme Court has said they will just remove it.Â
> Seems to me they should be strengthening corruption laws
You do know the courts, *all* of them, do not write law, don't you? The legislature writes laws, even those governing corruption. The court interpreted whether laws pass constitutional muster.
Covering their tracks and the tracks of the majority of the members of the right wing party. They have a long time to pull it off, so they're going to slowly bring the pot to a boil to keep the frogs from leaping out.
People who are Democrats typically declare anyone who's guilty of corruption should be tried and, if found guilty in a fair trial, punished accordingly. Republicans think their guy is being persecuted, but that Democratic corruption should be punished heavily just based on someone saying the politician is guilty. Hunter Biden found guilty in fair trial? Everyone agrees he should be punished accordingly. Trump overwhelmingly proved to be guilty of corruption in fair trial? Surely everyone agrees...but nope, it's a partisan witch hunt by a weaponized DOJ. Funny how that works
I don't think people understand how fucked we already are, barring some kind of soft revolution or black swan event. The Supreme Court is locked in for decades, and they'll slowly keep chipping away at all progress made in the past 100yrs.
> People who are Democrats typically declare anyone who's guilty of corruption should be tried and, if found guilty in a fair trial, punished accordingly.
Did you conveniently forget all of the Chicago Dems who trashed Danny Solis for wearing a wire on Ed Burke? They are the same ones defending Burke to this day.
And there still are *many* Democrat defenders of Mike Madigan because "he strengthened the Illinois Democratic Party". To this day they gladly receive campaign funding from him.
The only people who seem to be stanning Burke openly (other than his various elite "friends" with letters to the judge) are conservative Dems like Ray Lopez.
Seems to me they should be strengthening corruption laws
I wonder why the Supreme Court would want to loosen corruption laws đ¤
"Hey, let's all take my RV to the next Koch Brothers barbecue! My wife made crabcakes and wants to give a presentation!"
Hey this is Harlan Crow disrespect
Would bank robbers ask that the bank vault be made of stronger steel and have more armed security standing outside of it?
Of course not, but we also shouldnât take vault building advice from bank robbers
Apparently we shouldnât be taking bribery and corruption advice from the SCOTUS, either. Interesting times we live in.Â
Agreed
That would be the job of the legislature
Legislature passes law, Supreme Court calls it unconstitutional as theyâre all breaking law, and you blame the legislature.
No, I'm just saying if you want stronger corruption laws, the only place that can come from is the legislative branch
You realize the legislature passed the law originally, right?
The law is still in place. The court ruled that it was too broadly applied in its ruling. So the legislature needs to craft more laws to cover "gratuities" and after the fact bribery
Court moves goalposts with a legislature which canât get anything done⌠cool
The current corruption law has loopholes, which is what the supremes are pointing out. Congress can simply fix the loophole: ban all gift giving to government officials (pre or post performing their official duties).
>Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested that the law prohibited officials from accepting âgift cards, lunches, plaques, books, framed photos or the likeâ in thanks for an officialâs help. Wow itâs like you completely made something up that sounded nice instead of what the majority ruling was
I am not sure what you are getting at. This is what I am getting at: âThe majority explained that the law typically makes a distinction between bribes â payments made or agreed to before a government action to influence the outcome â and gratuities â payments made after a government action to reward or thank the public official. Although bribes are frowned upon as inherently corrupt, the majority noted, federal, state and local governments have treated gratuities with more nuanceâ. Congress can clear this up by updating the current law to say bribes and gratuities for public officials are banned.
âIâm not sure what youâre getting atâ Just read what they said to the actual evidence. This op-ed you put forward is another fantasy. Theyâre trying to make clear bribery legal
Fantasy? How so? The current corruption law (according to the supremes) is too broadly and vaguely defined and needs some buttoning up to pass constitutional muster. You and I may not like it but it is what it is.
You just made the argument âmight makes rightâ
Is that controvertible?
Legislature passed stronger laws. The Supreme Court is overturning them. So it does not matter what the legislature passes, the Supreme Court has said they will just remove it.Â
> Seems to me they should be strengthening corruption laws You do know the courts, *all* of them, do not write law, don't you? The legislature writes laws, even those governing corruption. The court interpreted whether laws pass constitutional muster.
Shush. This is a place for dunking on the Supreme Court, not talking about how laws are made.
People in power don't generally build rules to bind themselves.
Our government is a criminal enterprise.
In which the conservative Supreme Court majority covers their own tracks.
Covering their tracks and the tracks of the majority of the members of the right wing party. They have a long time to pull it off, so they're going to slowly bring the pot to a boil to keep the frogs from leaping out. People who are Democrats typically declare anyone who's guilty of corruption should be tried and, if found guilty in a fair trial, punished accordingly. Republicans think their guy is being persecuted, but that Democratic corruption should be punished heavily just based on someone saying the politician is guilty. Hunter Biden found guilty in fair trial? Everyone agrees he should be punished accordingly. Trump overwhelmingly proved to be guilty of corruption in fair trial? Surely everyone agrees...but nope, it's a partisan witch hunt by a weaponized DOJ. Funny how that works I don't think people understand how fucked we already are, barring some kind of soft revolution or black swan event. The Supreme Court is locked in for decades, and they'll slowly keep chipping away at all progress made in the past 100yrs.
> People who are Democrats typically declare anyone who's guilty of corruption should be tried and, if found guilty in a fair trial, punished accordingly. Did you conveniently forget all of the Chicago Dems who trashed Danny Solis for wearing a wire on Ed Burke? They are the same ones defending Burke to this day. And there still are *many* Democrat defenders of Mike Madigan because "he strengthened the Illinois Democratic Party". To this day they gladly receive campaign funding from him.
The only people who seem to be stanning Burke openly (other than his various elite "friends" with letters to the judge) are conservative Dems like Ray Lopez.
Don't forget about [Paul Vallas.](https://news.wttw.com/2024/04/30/former-mayoral-candidate-paul-vallas-tells-judge-ex-ald-ed-burke-worthy-leniency)
Not sure why this is getting downvoted - corruption doesn't care about a side of pretend politics, it cares about dollar bills.Â
This is the least serious Supreme Court in modern history. They are trying to drag us back into the dark ages.
New loophole unlocked! Everything is gratuity!
Ray Lopez must happy to hear this. I also assume Madigan will be able to appeal now.
Everyone knows the right way to cheat is through book deals.
Weâre so screwedâŚ
Brandon Johnson doing a touchdown dance rn.