Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yet the Supremes supersede state law.
No, they told an overzealous US Attorney to go back and prosecute a gratuity as a gratuity, as the statute defines the offenses.Yet the Supremes supersede state law.
they are virtually the same group. Batshit crazy MAGAs.No, they told an overzealous US Attorney to go back and prosecute a gratuity as a gratuity, as the statute defines the offenses.
They noted that the jurisdiction for regulating conduct of local officials is primarily a State matter, and the Congress does not normally intercede with laws for that purpose that impose penalties ten times as severe as the State laws provide, and the law the US Atty was using recognized the difference in severity between a bribe and gratuity and should be applied the way it was intended to be applied.
The decision does not "legalize bribery" by any rational reading.
"Reverse and Remand" means "do-over".
And oh btw, it was the Federalist Society, not the Heritage Foundation...