Trump’s Supreme Court just legalized bribery.

[BULLDOG]

The system has always been rigged to benefit the elite. No matter what party affiliation they adhere to.

True, but they at least tried to feign fairness. This one doesn't even try.

 

[BluesLegend]

Well I see the left are still seething over the Trump SCOTUS. Replacing Ginsburg with a conservative justice pushed them over the edge.

 

[rampart]

According to trump’s supreme Court Justices, it’s now perfectly legal to give large sums of money and elaborate trips or damn near anything else to officials, including judges, as long as the gift comes after the ruling instead of before. In more precise terms, they just gave themselves a hall pass to accept lavish gifts from rich folks who happen to like their rulings. It’s obvious that this new ruling was custom designed to justify Clarence Thomas’s elaborate gifts from Harlan Crow. Think about that. Can you expect a fair ruling from a court when the judge knows he will receive gifts, and all he has to do is rule in favor of what ever the gift giver wants? Just another example of the unethical behavior of trump and his appointees are forcing on the American Public.

MSN

this is so crazy . it is ok to tip your politician or judge?

no wonder trump wants to end the tax on tips.

 

[Moonglow]

True, but they at least tried to feign fairness. This one doesn't even try.

true, their greed has exposed their laziness

 

[Moonglow]

Well I see the left are still seething over the Trump SCOTUS. Replacing Ginsburg with a conservative justice pushed them over the edge.

You are blind to the truth.

 

[BULLDOG]

Well I see the left are still seething over the Trump SCOTUS. Replacing Ginsburg with a conservative justice pushed them over the edge.

Replacing Ginsberg with a partisan crook is what did it.

 

[rampart]

If liberals weren't illiterate, they would have noticed the issue at hand did not fall within federal purview.

yawn so then we spend a few decades suing over whether states can tax federal gratuities or if the minnesota legislature intended to include tips and such minutia as the "gratuities " keep rollling in!.

this is bribery by iou.

 

[TNHarley]

Take your own advice, Harley.

I did. Thats why I understand the ruling, and am not knee jerking and whining about them "legalizing bribery" like a hacked out limp wrist

 

[Marener]

Look at all these people wanting the SC to legislate from the bench lolz
And all because the MSM told them too

That’s pretty silly. Congress passed the legislation decades ago and conservative justices say that it doesn’t mean what the legislation says.

 

[rampart]

True, but they at least tried to feign fairness. This one doesn't even try.

insane. what kind of service do you expect if you do not leave a gratuity? justice on the auction block.

 

[Rogue AI]

yawn so then we spend a few decades suing over whether states can tax federal gratuities or if the minnesota legislature intended to include tips and such minutia as the "gratuities " keep rollling in!.

this is bribery by iou.

It is a state issue, that's the point. This was federal overreach, people should be rejoicing that it was pared back if only by a little.

 

[TNHarley]

That’s pretty silly. Congress passed the legislation decades ago and conservative justices say that it doesn’t mean what the legislation says.

What the legislation doesnt say, is the problem.

 

[Marener]

What the legislation doesnt say, is the problem.

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;

The plain text clearly says that a gratuity would be illegal.

 

[Rawley]

According to trump’s supreme Court Justices, it’s now perfectly legal to give large sums of money and elaborate trips or damn near anything else to officials, including judges, as long as the gift comes after the ruling instead of before. In more precise terms, they just gave themselves a hall pass to accept lavish gifts from rich folks who happen to like their rulings. It’s obvious that this new ruling was custom designed to justify Clarence Thomas’s elaborate gifts from Harlan Crow. Think about that. Can you expect a fair ruling from a court when the judge knows he will receive gifts, and all he has to do is rule in favor of what ever the gift giver wants? Just another example of the unethical behavior of trump and his appointees are forcing on the American Public.

MSN

Can you give us a list of the cases Mr. Crow had before the Court that Justice Thomas should have recused himself from?

 

[Marener]

It is a state issue, that's the point. This was federal overreach, people should be rejoicing that it was pared back if only by a little.

Congress passed legislation making it a federal issue. If you have a problem with that, get Congress to repeal the law.

 

[Rogue AI]

Congress passed legislation making it a federal issue. If you have a problem with that, get Congress to repeal the law.

No need, the Court just cleared it. Pay attention.

 

[Marener]

No need, the Court just cleared it. Pay attention.

The conservative justices ignored the legislation because they didn’t like that Congress passed it.

That’s not their role.

 

[Rawley]

The current Supreme Court is the most corrupt in history. But why is it a surprise that a “conservative” court is the most corrupt? After all it was a “conservative” court that ruled in Citizens United that large donors can spend unlimited sums for a political candidate of their choosing. The Citizens United case permitted legal corruption.

Corruption and Conservative go together like Bonnie and Clyde.

Can you give us a list of the cases that were tainted by corruption?

 

[JLW]

Can you give us a list of the cases that were tainted by corruption?

All you have to do is look at the current state of our politics to see how Citizen United corrupted this nation.

 

[TNHarley]

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;

The plain text clearly says that a gratuity would be illegal.

If you read the opinion, it would explain that.