Trump’s Supreme Court just legalized bribery.

[Rawley]

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

I'll ask again can you give us a list of the cases decided by this Court that were tainted by corruption?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

What was the Harlan Crow case that got the favorable ruling?

 

[Rogue AI]

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

That’s not their role.

No, they saw there was no federal interest and slapped down overreach.

 

[ColonelAngus]

The left does not want judges who interpret the CONSTITUTION.

The left wants ideologues who legislate from the bench based on their personal opinions, not the law.

PISS OFF.

 

[cnm]

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.

Have you just realised the US has the best government money can buy?

 

[Marener]

If you read the opinion, it would explain that.

I did read the opinion and it glosses over it by claiming that Congress didn’t really mean to say what the words clearly say, but they also have basically no evidence to support that contention.

The opinion is largely pretextual to support their conservative adherence to federalism without having to find the law to be unconstitutional.

 

[Marener]

No, they saw there was no federal interest and slapped down overreach.

Nope. If they believed that, they would have declared the law unconstitutional.

But they didn’t do that.

 

[Rogue AI]

Nope. If they believed that, they would have declared the law unconstitutional.

But they didn’t do that.

The law itself is not unconstitutional, there are legitimate cases in which it could be applied, this wasn't one of them.

 

[cnm]

https://apnews.com › article › supreme-court-trump-presidential-immunity-abortion-gun-2918d3af5e37e44bbad9c3526506c66d​

1 day ago
As the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule on a major case involving former President Donald Trump, 7 in 10 Americans think its justices are more likely to shape the law to fit their own ideology, rather than serving as neutral arbiters of government authority, according to a new poll. ​

 

[Marener]

The law itself is not unconstitutional, there are legitimate cases in which it could be applied, this wasn't one of them.

But you said that it wasn’t a federal issue, now you’re claiming it can be a federal issue?

 

[Rogue AI]

But you said that it wasn’t a federal issue, now you’re claiming it can be a federal issue?

Not in this case, no, not a federal issue. Had the 'gift' been provided by an international entity the feds would have a place, as that would be outside the powers of the state in many cases.

 

[Marener]

Not in this case, no, not a federal issue. Had the 'gift' been provided by an international entity the feds would have a place, as that would be outside the powers of the state in many cases.

Funny how SCOTUS didn’t mention this at all in their decision.

 

[Rogue AI]

Funny how SCOTUS didn’t mention this at all in their decision.

Why would they? It was a local issue.

 

[Marener]

Why would they? It was a local issue.

Because the case was presented to them for their opinion.

Jesus, are you trolling?

If SCOTUS thought this was merely a local issue, they would have said so.

 

[Smokin' OP]

What was the Harlan Crow case that got the favorable ruling?

It doesn't matter, Thomas tried to cover it up.

 

[Rogue AI]

Because the case was presented to them for their opinion.

Jesus, are you trolling?

If SCOTUS thought this was merely a local issue, they would have said so.

The Constitutionality wasn't in question, the application in case was. You might want to read it again.

 

[martybegan]

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

There are State laws that already cover this.

Bribery is not legalized.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

It doesn't matter, Thomas tried to cover it up.

So, there weren't any Harlan Crow cases.

 

[Marener]

There are State laws that already cover this.

Not relevant.

 

[Marener]

The Constitutionality wasn't in question, the application in case was. You might want to read it again.

There’s absolutely nothing in the decision that is consistent with what you’re claiming.