# The Supreme Court Builds More Corruption into our Judicial System and Institutions **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [June 27, 2024, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-builds-more-corruption-into-our-judicial-system-and-institutions/1003386 "2024-06-27T03:50:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![DeadTreasSecretaries](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deadtreassecretaries/32/4817_2.png) [@DeadTreasSecretaries](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DeadTreasSecretaries)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2024, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-builds-more-corruption-into-our-judicial-system-and-institutions/1003386/21 "2024-06-27T18:57:51Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > (B) corruptly solicits or demands for the benefit of any person, or accepts or agrees to accept, anything of [value](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=18-USC-111972721-522572450&term_occur=999&term_src=title:18:part:I:chapter:31:section:666) 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](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=18-USC-111972721-522572450&term_occur=999&term_src=title:18:part:I:chapter:31:section:666) of $5,000 or more; or I agree with Jackson’s dissent. The phrase “or rewarded” textually covers an after the fact gift accepted with corrupt intent. The majority opinion’s handwave of this based on legislative history is a great example of why legislative history is a dangerous way to make judgments ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2024, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-builds-more-corruption-into-our-judicial-system-and-institutions/1003386/22 "2024-06-27T19:32:06Z")
> [@doreen](#): > > I don’t know how I feel about this decision yet , but it doesn’t say it’s legal for state and local officials to accept a gratuity after the fact. I’m not a state _official_ but I am a state _employee_ and there are state laws governing what I can or can’t accept as gifts. And I didn’t think this would impact me at all. AFAIK, state and local laws have taken cues from federal law but are independent of them in matters like this. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2024, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-builds-more-corruption-into-our-judicial-system-and-institutions/1003386/23 "2024-06-27T20:00:31Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > What this means is that straight-up bribery is still illegal, but politicians may increasingly award contracts with some **hope** of getting a “gift” years down the road. An expectation that can never be legally confirmed by writing or spoken word, but that would now exist more and more. There’s also way too much room for wink-wink-nudge-nudge. “Hey, did you hear about the Supreme Court decision in Snyder v. United States? Interesting stuff, eh? So, are you interested in funding our project? It’d mean a lot to us. It’d save us at least ten million dollars, but we’d be happy with half of that.” ---
**Author:** ![Akaj](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/akaj/32/145_2.png) [@Akaj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Akaj)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2024, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-builds-more-corruption-into-our-judicial-system-and-institutions/1003386/24 "2024-06-27T20:51:48Z")
Republicans in Illinois have been screaming for decades about the corruption of former Dem House Speaker and power broker Michael Madigan (and FTR I agreed with them). A few years ago the feds finally indicted him, and his trial has been grinding along. Today, his attorneys are crowing about how this decision will lead to the charges being dropped. I have no idea how accurate that may be, but I imagine all those Republicans will now take a good long look in the mirror and realize their foolishness in gaming the system to appoint so many Heritage Foundation recommendations to the SCOTUS. Haha, just kidding! If the charges get dropped, they’ll find a way to blame Democrats. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2024, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-builds-more-corruption-into-our-judicial-system-and-institutions/1003386/25 "2024-06-27T20:57:56Z")
> [@DeadTreasSecretaries](#): > > The phrase “or rewarded” textually covers an after the fact gift accepted with corrupt intent. That’s a subsection of “accepts or agrees to accept, intending to be rewarded”. The “or rewarded” doesn’t stand on its own. It only comes into play after having accepted and having had an intent. I.e. you have to have had a pre-existing agreement. To be sure, I am not saying that there shouldn’t be an emoluments law for public officials. It just happens to be that 666 isn’t one. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2024, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-builds-more-corruption-into-our-judicial-system-and-institutions/1003386/26 "2024-06-27T21:01:36Z")
> [@DeadTreasSecretaries](#): > > I agree with Jackson’s dissent. The phrase “or rewarded” textually covers an after the fact gift accepted with corrupt intent. The majority opinion’s handwave of this based on legislative history is a great example of why legislative history is a dangerous way to make judgments ^ This. The “We Love Corruption” decision came out after the Supposedly Accidental pre-release of the Idaho Abortion decision, yesterday. And today all oxygen in the news media was taken up by a) The Debate (understandable) plus b) The Accidental Release of the Idaho decision (convenient). _ **So no one had even one spare second for the We Love Corruption case.** _ That ‘accident’ was no accident. > [@The\_Understander](#): > > Thus does the concept of packing the court move evidently from the category of “Executive Overreach” to the ledger headed by “Preserve, Protect, and Defend the Constitution of the United States.” Seriously. Again, folks: the Constitution says NOTHING about the number of Justices. To the ‘that would just lead the other side to increase the number of Justices AGAIN’ arguments: everyone, left and right, can see that the Court is ridiculously out of balance, now. After balance is restored, what would their argument be? ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2024, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-builds-more-corruption-into-our-judicial-system-and-institutions/1003386/27 "2024-06-27T21:05:29Z")
One could argue that there should be a Justice for each Federal appellate court. Currently there are 13 Federal Courts of Appeals and only nine Justices. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2024, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-builds-more-corruption-into-our-judicial-system-and-institutions/1003386/28 "2024-06-27T21:07:47Z")
> [@EddyTeddyFreddy](#): > > One could argue that there should be a Justice for each Federal appellate court. Currently there are 13 Federal Courts of Appeals and only nine Justices. . Yes. I’ve never seen one convincing argument that ‘one Justice per Court of Appeals’ is _un_reasonable. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2024, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-builds-more-corruption-into-our-judicial-system-and-institutions/1003386/29 "2024-06-27T21:14:21Z")
> [@Atamasama](#): > > And I didn’t think this would impact me at all. It only impacts you in the sense that before this decision, the Feds could _possibly_ have prosecuted you for accepting a gratuity after the fact. ( The actual law uses _agent_ and defines _agent_ as including employee ) The decision has nothing to do with state law, so if state law forbids it, the state can prosecute someone who accepts a gratuity. What I haven’t been able to find out is why Indiana didn’t prosecute him ( and why Illinois didn’t prosecute Blagojevich ) Did the states not have any laws about illegal gratuities, did the state defer to the Feds , or did the Feds step in because the states were ignoring the situation? ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2024, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-builds-more-corruption-into-our-judicial-system-and-institutions/1003386/30 "2024-06-27T21:20:42Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > The Supreme Court ruling means that you can’t promise a politician any sort of compensation in **advance**. You can’t say “If you give my company this government contract, I’ll write you a check for $800,000.” That would be straight-up kickback bribery, and still a crime. > > But what you **can** do is give the politician a thank-you gift long after the contract deal is over, perhaps ten years down the road - _as long as you never communicated any intent to do so before the contract was awarded._ My read, via the excellent dissent, is that the majority does not restrict Congress’s power to criminalize the acceptance of a reward for corrupt purposes. Rather, they use convoluted logic to argue that the law in question covers only bribes and is irrelevant in prosecuting an after-the-fact corrupt payment. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2024, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-builds-more-corruption-into-our-judicial-system-and-institutions/1003386/31 "2024-06-27T21:32:35Z")
It would also give companies an incentive to build up a reputation as a lavish gift-giver. If Company XYZ is well known for giving politicians $30 million gratuities several years after the completion of a contract, and does so very consistently, you can bet politicians will take extremely close notice of it. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2024, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-builds-more-corruption-into-our-judicial-system-and-institutions/1003386/32 "2024-06-27T21:37:06Z")
No doubt. If you read the details of the crime in question, details the majority ignored or glossed over, it’s hard to think of a transaction that would smell worse. Snyder literally walked into the firm for which he engineered the contracts and said, “I need money.” And they gave it to him. ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2024, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-builds-more-corruption-into-our-judicial-system-and-institutions/1003386/33 "2024-06-27T21:48:12Z")
> [@Chad\_Sudan](#): > > Thanks, @Aspenglow, for bringing this pernicious ruling to our attention. Most welcome. I was appalled when I read it, and the decision was getting very little attention with all the hoopla around the debate. People need to be aware of the stuff the Supreme Court is doing while they keep us entertained with distractions. * * * I calibrate my outrage over this via Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s. I consider her a North star of morality on the Court as it is currently comprised. She didn’t hesitate to show her disdain for her colleagues in her dissent: > Snyder’s absurd and atextual reading of the statute is one only today’s Court could love. That’s some heavy shade. It seems to me that SCOTUS rulings should work to lessen the temptations to corrupt our government. Instead, this SCOTUS seems hellbent on making government as corrupt and untrustworthy as possible. As others have noted, having been a public servant myself and scrupulously adhered to the required and necessary prohibitions to accept gifts of any kind, I’m offended down to my toes by this decision. ---
**Author:** ![Tride](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tride/32/13907_2.png) [@Tride](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tride)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2024, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-builds-more-corruption-into-our-judicial-system-and-institutions/1003386/34 "2024-06-27T21:48:46Z")
So I can call my Building Inspector at Christmas and say, “Hey, we had a hell of a year–here’s $10k for helping us get our client’s projects finished?” Because the inspector is a HUGE part of getting C/O and the clients in. That wouldn’t have any effect on future performance, right? ---
**Author:** ![DavidNRockies](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidnrockies/32/6279_2.png) [@DavidNRockies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidNRockies)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2024, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-builds-more-corruption-into-our-judicial-system-and-institutions/1003386/35 "2024-06-27T22:51:50Z")
> Thanks very much for all your help on this one. Please remember: the Senator is registered at [**Feadship**](https://www.feadship.nl/). 🤮 ---
**Author:** ![Joey\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/919ad9/32.png) [@Joey\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_P)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2024, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-builds-more-corruption-into-our-judicial-system-and-institutions/1003386/36 "2024-06-28T00:04:04Z")
Just ran across this: [![](https://i.imgur.com/EpTcFb8.jpeg) ](https://i.imgur.com/EpTcFb8.jpeg) Checking those… > **[Supreme Court blocks Purdue Pharma opioid settlement, threatening billions of...](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-blocks-purdue-pharma-opioid-settlement-rcna139066)** > > In a loss for the Sackler family, the justices ruled that a bankruptcy judge did not have the authority to let its members evade facing future lawsuits. > **[Supreme Court blocks EPA’s ‘downwind’ air-quality initiative](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/06/27/supreme-court-epa-air-quality-regulation/)** > > States, trade associations and companies sought to pause the EPA’s “good neighbor” plan to fight downwind pollution, which is being challenged in a lower court. > **[Supreme Court limits SEC's powers to impose fines](https://www.npr.org/2024/06/27/g-s1-2548/supreme-court-sec)** > > The U.S. Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the way the Securities and Exchange Commission imposes fines for fraudulent conduct and requires that wrongdoers give back their ill-gotten gains. ---
**Author:** ![thorny\_locust](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thorny_locust/32/431_2.png) [@thorny\_locust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thorny_locust)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2024, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-builds-more-corruption-into-our-judicial-system-and-institutions/1003386/37 "2024-06-28T00:23:19Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > To the ‘that would just lead the other side to increase the number of Justices AGAIN’ arguments: everyone, left and right, can see that the Court is ridiculously out of balance, now. After balance is restored, what would their argument be? That they want it to be out of balance in their direction, and that only a court out of balance in their direction is Right, Correct, and Just. Or, for that matter, just that it wasn’t out of balance, but right where it belonged. What you can see isn’t what they’re seeing. – and we’d still need 60 votes in the Senate to get anybody confirmed. Easier than getting a constitutional amendment through; but doesn’t look imminently likely. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2024, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-builds-more-corruption-into-our-judicial-system-and-institutions/1003386/38 "2024-06-28T00:39:38Z")
1. That particular filibuster has already been nuked. ---
**Author:** ![DeadTreasSecretaries](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deadtreassecretaries/32/4817_2.png) [@DeadTreasSecretaries](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DeadTreasSecretaries)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2024, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-builds-more-corruption-into-our-judicial-system-and-institutions/1003386/39 "2024-06-28T04:20:44Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > That’s a subsection of “accepts or agrees to accept, intending to be rewarded”. > > The “or rewarded” doesn’t stand on its own. It only comes into play after having accepted and having had an intent. I.e. you have to have had a pre-existing agreement. No, intent and a pre-existing agreement aren’t the same thing. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2024, 7:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-builds-more-corruption-into-our-judicial-system-and-institutions/1003386/40 "2024-06-28T07:58:48Z")
“I never promised the governor anything beforehand. I only gave him a $5000 thank you gift after each one of those 30 state contracts were awarded to my company.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-builds-more-corruption-into-our-judicial-system-and-institutions/1003386.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-builds-more-corruption-into-our-judicial-system-and-institutions/1003386.md?page=3)