Trump’s Supreme Court just legalized bribery.

[Rogue AI]

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

Nonsense, you certainly didn't read it those few minutes. Try harder.

 

[martybegan]

Not relevant.

100% relevant. This was a crime committed at the State level inside one State.

 

[Marener]

Nonsense, you certainly didn't read it those few minutes. Try harder.

feel free to quote the language that backs you up.

 

[Marener]

100% relevant. This was a crime committed at the State level inside one State.

Congress made it a federal issue when they passed the law making it a federal issue.

If you have a problem with that, take it up with Congress. This isn’t a matter for the court to decide.

 

[martybegan]

Congress made it a federal issue when they passed the law making it a federal issue.

If you have a problem with that, take it up with Congress. This isn’t a matter for the court to decide.

They made a law on something that was already covered by State laws, and handled by State Judicial systems.

And congress wrote a law that was too vague to pass scrutiny.

 

[Orangecat]

Trump’s Supreme Court just legalized bribery.​

Trump doesn’t own the SCOTUS. He nominated 1/3 of the current justices. The dims shouldn’t have run that dumb bitch in 2016. Everyone knew the appointments were going to happen during that term. Elections have consequences.

 

[Smokin' OP]

So, there weren't any Harlan Crow cases.

Report: Harlan Crow Has a Stake in 4 SCOTUS Cases​

Truthout
https://truthout.org › News
Oct 11, 2023 — One key case that Crow has a stake in is Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, in which the High Court could rule to overturn nearly 40 years of ...

Federal courts have used the Chevron doctrine for decades to defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute. However, the doctrine is undergoing challenges in two cases pending before the U.S. Supreme Court that will likely be ruled on by early July 2024.

 

[Marener]

They made a law on something that was already covered by State laws, and handled by State Judicial systems.

And congress wrote a law that was too vague to pass scrutiny.

Congress is perfectly justified to make a law on the issue, regardless of state laws. They have constitutional authority to do so.

Maybe you don’t like that, but you can’t just pretend the law doesn’t exist.

 

[Orangecat]

The Supreme Court is going to find itself in a bad place with the public if people don't trust its rulings.

Two words: lifetime appointments.
Two more: suck it.

 

[martybegan]

Report: Harlan Crow Has a Stake in 4 SCOTUS Cases​

View attachment 968097
Truthout
https://truthout.org › News
Oct 11, 2023 — One key case that Crow has a stake in is Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, in which the High Court could rule to overturn nearly 40 years of ...

Federal courts have used the Chevron doctrine for decades to defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute. However, the doctrine is undergoing challenges in two cases pending before the U.S. Supreme Court that will likely be ruled on by early July 2024.

Define a "stake"

And Thomas has been gunning for Chevron since he was appointed to the bench, no one has to encourage him to do that.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

There are State laws that already cover this.

Bribery is not legalized.

Seems it is not bribery if you get it after the fact, then it is just a thank you gift.

 

[martybegan]

Congress is perfectly justified to make a law on the issue, regardless of state laws. They have constitutional authority to do so.

Maybe you don’t like that, but you can’t just pretend the law doesn’t exist.

Only in matters of interstate commerce and other issues. The left wants the ONE BIG GUBBERMINT but Federalists like me prefer the federal system.

This was overreach, pure and simple.

 

[martybegan]

Seems it is not bribery if you get it after the fact, then it is just a thank you gift.

The write the law to cover money before and after, and give values for it. The law was vaguely written, as well as encroaching on State's issues.

 

[Orangecat]

If he pays for it, as a Supreme Court Justice you are required to report it.

According to whom?

 

[Marener]

Only in matters of interstate commerce and other issues. The left wants the ONE BIG GUBBERMINT but Federalists like me prefer the federal system.

This was overreach, pure and simple.

The law covers any government agency that receives $10k in federal grants, so it is a federal issue.

The law is perfectly constitutional.

Why wouldn’t you want the federal government to prosecute corrupt state level officials?

 

[Orangecat]

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

That’s not their role.

Separate but equal, dumbass.

 

[martybegan]

The law covers any government agency that receives $10k in federal grants, so it is a federal issue.

The law is perfectly constitutional.

Why wouldn’t you want the federal government to prosecute corrupt state level officials?

So any State agency then becomes overridden from local jurisdiction...

The Feds have a recourse for that, stop giving out money. Better yet the Federal level should stop being a pass through for money in general.

Because the current federal government is a tool of the left? This is what you fucks get for weaponizing the federal bureaucracy.

Maybe next time the federal legislature should also write a tighter law, defining what corruption is instead of just saying "corrupting activities" and leaving up to said weaponized bureaucracy to figure it out.

State laws can handle this, the feds don't need to be involved. if they don't like it they can take their funding and go home.

 

[Orangecat]

Lotta leftie butthurt this morning. It’s a nice prequel to tonight’s debate. Stock up on sanitary napkins, libtards!

 

[Rawley]

Conservative SCOTUS justices say it’s super legal for their “friends” to drop off suitcases of cash when they rule in ways they like.

I'd love to see that quote.

 

[Marener]

So any State agency then becomes overridden from local jurisdiction...

The Feds have a recourse for that, stop giving out money. Better yet the Federal level should stop being a pass through for money in general.

Because the current federal government is a tool of the left? This is what you fucks get for weaponizing the federal bureaucracy.

Maybe next time the federal legislature should also write a tighter law, defining what corruption is instead of just saying "corrupting activities" and leaving up to said weaponized bureaucracy to figure it out.

State laws can handle this, the feds don't need to be involved. if they don't like it they can take their funding and go home.

These are all issues for Congress to handle, not the court.

It’s the conservative SCOTUS that is changing laws because they don’t like them.