The high court’s 6-3 opinion along ideological lines found the law criminalizes bribes given before an official act, not rewards handed out after.

Eg: it’s ok to give Supreme Court Justices money after they rule in your favor because it’s normal and ok to regularly hand them amounts much larger than their salary. The Democrats on the court were the dissenters.

  • Rottcodd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    131
    ·
    3 days ago

    The Supreme Court basically just ruled that it’s perfectly acceptable for officials to accept and even ask for bribes, just so long as they wait a few weeks after the service for which the bribe is meant to pay.

    Seriously. That’s exactly what this ruling in effect says - that bribes are only bribes if they’re paid before the service is rendered, and if they’re paid after, that’s perfectly fine.

    And people still wonder why I’m such a cynic…

      • Rottcodd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        34
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        They called it a gratuity to try to divert attention from the bludgeoningly obvious fact that it’s just a postdated bribe.

        This is what this country has come to. In the face of an ever-growing failure of the government to represent the will of the people because their influence has been bought and paid for by moneyed interests, the Supreme Court is legalizing bribery.

        Of course, it’s certainly not a coincidence that one of the institutions that’s been bought and paid for is the Supreme Court itself.

    • ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      3 days ago

      The dumbest part about this ruling is it treats every bribe as unrelated to every other bribe. The majority ignored the basic trait of every human with a prefrontal cortex, that we judge future planning by past experience.

      So even ignoring the “first bribe is free” effect of the decision, what will happen in effect is that legislators and politicians will pass laws they think will gain bribes, be paid by interests that benefit after the fact, and after that without a single word, have an understanding that such back-dated bribes can continue indefinitely. Regular, consistent bribery is legal and easy, under this ruling.

      • Clasm@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 days ago

        This is it, exactly. They are going to start voting in a way that generates themselves the most future gifts, actual justice be damned.

        Who do you think is going to be able to afford future gifts? Because it sure as hell isn’t going to be the little guy.

    • Hugin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      Not exactly the AP article is bad. You still can’t make an agreement before the act and get paid latter or ask for a payment latter.

      However as long as you keep it sufficiently wink wink nudge nudge you are fine as intent now has to be proven.

      • Rottcodd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 days ago

        I don’t see any possible way it couldn’t. Every official is going to expect a “gratuity” in exchange for approving a contract, and every contractor who expects to succeed is going to go into every deal with the understanding that they’re going to be expected to pay a “gratuity” after the deal is finalized.

        The upshot of it all can only be wholly institutionalized pay-to-play, with only the ultimately entirely meaningless requirement that the payment has to be deferred instead of up front.

  • BakerBagel@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    3 days ago

    I am honestly blown away there hasn’t been any assassination attempts on any justices recently. They have record low public approval, never emding corruption scandals, and have been throwing out all these rulings that are blatantly undermining the rule of law.

  • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    3 days ago

    Justices that ruled that bribery as “gratuity” is legal:

    • John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice of the United States
    • Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice
    • Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice
    • Neil M. Gorsuch, Associate Justice
    • Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate Justice
    • Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice

    Justices that ruled that bribery is illegal:

    • Justices Elena Kagan, Associate Justice
    • Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice
    • Ketanji Brown Jackson, Associate Justice
  • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    3 days ago

    The supreme court justices get “gratuities” from decisions conservative magnates want. They are just applying that corrupt standard to every American population.

  • barkingspiders@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    3 days ago

    seems like a good thread to plug https://represent.us

    they describe themselves as

    RepresentUs is America’s leading nonpartisan anti-corruption organization fighting to fix our broken and ineffective government. We unite people across the political spectrum to pass laws that hold corrupt politicians accountable, defeat special interests, and force the government to meet the needs of the American people.

    here’s their policy platform https://represent.us/policy-platform/

    they claim to have played a part in over 185 pieces of legislation (mostly at the state level) that contributed to their core platform https://represent.us/our-wins/

    here are their ongoing campaigns presented state by state https://represent.us/2024-campaigns/

    nobody and no organization are perfect but I feel like most people can find something to agree on here

    • Ranvier@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      Anti corruption laws, pushing for ranked choice voting, popular interstate vote compact, and fighting gerrymandering? Oh yeah, donated.

  • dugmeup@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    3 days ago

    The decision also comes as the Supreme Court itself has faced sustained criticism over undisclosed trips and gifts from wealthy benefactors to some justices that led the high court to adopt its first code of ethics, though it lacks an enforcement mechanism.

    The conservative faction:

  • paysrenttobirds@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    3 days ago

    Omg, this is amazing. Ok hear me out, you think bribes are expensive, but at local or even state levels they can be very reasonable, so here’s what we do is GoFundMe for legislators, where regular people bid money into escrow for a certain rep’s vote and if they do it, they get the cash. Of course people of wrong opinion can also bid so it’s not guaranteed to get you what you want, but you can collectively at least make it more expensive for them! Normal bribery requires all kinds of relationship development and professional lobbyists to make sure it’s works right, so it’s available only to the well funded few. Post-vote bribery is open to all and cuts the smarmy middlemen.

    I know you’re appalled, but consider how out of touch most reps are from their constituents. They are told all day long by these lobbyists that you don’t really hate genocide or that you really count on them to keep drilling for oil. Here you can tell your real values to their face with money, the same arbiter of truth those billionaires are using. Not for a campaign, but for a specific vote!

    • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 days ago

      That might work for the very short term. But the “bribes” you see are campaign finance and they are only so small because of laws. The real bribes are the jobs and consulting work after.

      If you cam just pay them outright, costs will skyrocket.

  • Kaput@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    That’s a fucking blow to the politicians. They can’t even take the money on a flimsy promise anymore. they’ve got to actually deliver before they get to pocket it. I wonder what kind of cut I could make on being an escrow.