Supreme Court Justices have to survive on a measly 300,000 dollar salary. That's barely enough for 4 cars and a summer home. Do you want them to live like peasants and have a Florida summerhouse in a gated community that isn't waterfront. /s
In a career that is nearly guaranteed until death or departure, with only the smallest chance of getting fired - read: impeached, at least in the current political environment.
[28.5 million people per summer, which is almost 90% of the numbers in Spring (peak tourist season)](https://myfloridacfo.com/floridas-seasonal-tourism-pattern)
A buddy of mine has been in the public official world for years.. we caught up one time, he was not in office... he worked for a congressman but locally only... he did intend to run for office and now is...
At that time, where he was simply an employee of the congressman office... he refused to allow me to cover lunch.
I was a performer at the time and wanted to comp him a ticket to a 10 dollar show as well... he refused that too.
This is not difficult to do.
My girlfriend just had a meeting with her city mayor and she wanted to bring some of her products as gifts, but they all refused due to same reasons.
It's sad that the people that represent/make decisions for 40-50k people (in this case) follow the rules and are under more scrutiny vs the people that represent/make decisions for the whole country.
I had dinner with a public defender recently and he was quite upset about this. We both wondered what happened to the old standard of avoiding even the appearance of impropriety.
Federal employees in general are limited to the $20/$50 rule: $20 limit on any single gift, $50 limit on the total gifts from one source in a year. Basically, 3 burger lunches a year from one contractor.
Oh, you’re allowed to *accept* physical gifts but they *immediately* become property of the government. Meals and other intangibles are *verboten*.
It’s SOP for all government employees
I work for the state at a low level. I had to do conflict of interest training that stated even the appearance of grift is prohibited. I cant even take trash because it could be interpreted as grift.
There is a difference between, say, someone taking you to lunch at Chipotle to say thanks, and someone taking you out to dinner at Dorsia to say thanks. This is why a lot of federal agencies put a straight up (low) dollar amount on it. You can accept anything up to $50 in value, and that’s it.
That’s what a gratuity is supposed to mean. Not a Lamborghini. And that’s what the decision is saying.
The problem is, when you have Thomas accepting waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more than a lunch at Applebee’s, this otherwise very valid reasoning kind of falls flat.
Is that a constraint from your contracting company? Because I work at the federal level and we go by the fixed dollar amount when doing our annual ethics training.
They are attempting to obfuscate this case. Any reasonable person would completely understand how it's supposed to work, but they are trying to make the case that it's all or nothing. Having lunch is fine, even though I've turned down having my meal paid for; receiving a picture, plaque, small token of appreciation is all fine. None of the things I'm listed would ever be seen as a "bribe", especially considering there's a black and white hard line of $50 you can't cross. The point is that the sentiment is worth more than the actual dollar value.
My dad worked for the city as an inspector when I was growing up. He couldn't so much as grab a cup of coffee from the pot sitting on site or accept a pen.
“…or trips overseas priced at hundreds of thousands of dollars, or a thousand dollar bottle of alcohol… all perfectly normal and of course doesn’t affect my opinions on this or any other matter.”
[I'm just gonna drop a link here to a study that found a correlation between different countries' pro-tipping culture and increased instances corruption.](https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/9491448/Here's-a-Tip_Torfason,Flynn,Kupor-Tipping-and-Bribery-6-6-12-SPPS.pdf)
I'm sure 6/9 SCOTUS justices would love to have their clerks print it out and leave it in their bathrooms to wipe their asses with it, on top of the stack of copies of the US Constitution.
It’s the question of the order of operation. Like obviously you can’t just take money from a group and vote a certain way. What if you vote a certain way and then get paid? I know it seems silly on its face, but bribes are usually things given up front and gratuities on the back end.
One of the more fishy ones has always been the payments that come after one leaves office. My local city paid to build an NFL football team stadium on the counties dime. One of the council members has since been voted out and has a lifelong position with the team now that he’s left office. The guy has his own room with a plaque on the door, but no one‘s ever actually seen him show up for work.
If you continue reading, this decision came from a change in law Congress made. Originally the text forbade both bribes and gratuities.... But later on gratuities were dropped. Congress did a stupid, not the court.
That's definitely suspect. It's exactly the sort of thing that Congress has tried to outlaw, "the appearance of corruption," and that the court has said no one can do anything about.
The original language forbid both bribes and gratituities, but then they changed it removing the language forbidding gratituities. Congress did a stupid not the court.
*"I'm not bribing you. I'm just saying I have a policy of giving 10k bonuses to people who rule in my favor. You can do whatever you want with that information! But it's definitely not a bribe!"*
I love how in my line of work (doctor), there's so much red tape around accepting gifts from private agencies like pharmaceutical companies that even accepting pens treads on being reportable...but they get to take whatever they want? Ridiculous.
I'm in IT and couldn't even accept a coffee from a vendor because we had a public tender open and they might apply ans if successful that €5 coffee xoukd be called a bribe
Same. I don't even do any customer/government relations or procurement, but EVERYONE in my (large multinational) company has to take a yearly "don't bribe, don't accept bribes" course with really strict definitions on what can be considered a "bribe".
At the time I was what is called semi-state, or QUANGO..so a public body outside thats not exactly civil service, as in teh ge eral oublic woukdntnrecieve services from us but the company receives financial funding from the government.
Then I moved to a bank and it was pretty much the same, then insurance, again the same. With insurance as a manager I was told that any gifts I did recieve (usually at christmas)must be given to HR who would then distribute to lower level staff. Instead I took them and gave them to my direct reports.
Yeah. I’ve been a compliance officer on the other side of this fence and the government scrutiny, both here and abroad under the FCPA is obscene. Yet, it seems that I can create a pattern of behaviour here now that will encourage people to support our business knowing that gratuities will be showered upon them after the deal is done. Negligent and corrupt.
I’m a teacher and some school districts don’t allow gifts or limit the amount. I believe my profession it’s important but not at the level of a Supreme Court justice.
I am surprised you are allowed at all. We are banned outright. No pens for us. To be fair, some of our docs were earning more on speaking engagements than practicing medicine.
The law must be different for hospitals; my regional hospital chain regularly has pharma reps dropping thousands on restaurant catering. My wife used to work reception at that hospital and got steak dinner delivered to her all the time by pharma sales reps. I was working in restaurants at the time, and I had to cook that massive $2000 call-in order with no notice!
Oh, they certainly can do meals and certain gifts...but they're all strictly reportable.
The hospital needs to sign off on those (obviously), and then if it's pharm sponsored there legally needs to be a sign in form to note which providers came to the meal. All those provider names get submitted to the government for transparency.
And they have to be *extremely* careful about these gifts/meals. The value of the meals (per person) can't exceed a fixed amount.
All docs need to take a yearly course on Stark Law regarding this. It's annoying and boring, but we all do it.
Yeah - a gift card is the same as a billionaire buying Clerance Thomas's moms house and letting her live there for free, international vacations on private jets and RV'S. GTFO of here
The Court refuses to take the steps to regulate gifts, etc., knowing that the states won’t legislate it, under the guise of states’ rights, This is jurisprudence cowardice and, in fact, legalizes bribes.
Maybe I’m going out on a limb here, but could there potentially maybe be some level of conflict of interest with a court deciding how a law about gifts to themselves should be interpreted?
If you decide to take a lifetime job with great pay and benefits, then don't take ANY gifts or side deals, nothing. If you don't like that then you are free to quit the job and do something else. This is not too much to ask.
This goes for congress too. If you want to work in congress, then no gifts, no side deals, no buying stock, nothing. If you don't like it quit and do something else.
The best part is that in that case the defendant received a “token of appreciation” in the form of $13,000 cash. But go on about lunches and shit, kavanaugh. Clearly you’re just calling balls and strikes.
There it is--"State and local officials" and "State and local governments". Nothing about federal employees like them. What do you want, an interpretive dance?
They just have, no legitimacy anymore. An entire branch of the government has made itself irrelevant as their rulings are so antithetical to the root law they pull from, you just have to ignore them at this point.
The Supreme Court should be ignored at this point.
For context 666(a)(1)(B) only applies to gifts greater than $5000. Who thinks a $5000 gift is a "common place gratuite"?
The official in the case received a check for $13,000 from an organization he gave a $1.1 m contract to.
It's ridiculous, they should be held to the same standard as federal employees. I know I work for the fed for a department that's very likely to receive bribes as opposed to some others... our gift limit is $10.
That also includes just giving fellow coworkers gifts or even if you were to offer to buy lunch.
...and there, my Republican friends, is how the swamp is filled. Well, that and the Citizens United ruling that gave corporations civilian rights, and the ability to donate whatever they want to a political campaign.
If you truly want to drain the swamp, you first have to unclog the trash in the republican party that is blocking the drain.
No bribes, only gratuities for a job well done. Makes perfect sense, because I'm sure they had absolutely no idea what outcome the person paying gratuities wanted...
These really are two different things. Bribes and gratuities usually have different statues governing n them. The only question is whether the statute in question covered both or only bribes.
Dismantling democracy piece by piece. Bribing needs to be legal because it's how Trump's version of the world operates. Quid pro quo and kissing ass to prove your loyalty to the crown. Next is gay marriage and contraception. You all need to vote down ballot blue in every god damn election to have any fighting chance to *legally* save democracy.
Remember kids, you can't give a Congressman an all-expense paid vacation to the Bahamas to get them to vote for the legislation you want passed.
BUT you can give a Congressman an all-expense paid vacation to the Bahamas as a token of appreciation after they vote to pass legislation you wanted passed.
And if you IMPLY before the vote that you always give tokens of appreciations to your friends AND if word gets around Capitol Hill that you take good care of your friends in Congress... well that's just what friends are for!
In the military (USCG ) I’m speaking from working for the government they pound it in us that you can not accept ANY gift that cost more than $25. As in if say we save someone’s life from a boat on fire and they feel so inclined that they want to think the people who have kept them alive and breathing. We have to decline it or we as lowly workers for the government would be in so much trouble up to including being discharged and lose everything we have worked for. But I guess if you make the rules they can be what ever you want them to be. Laws for thee not for me. All the way for them
Everyone ready for a General Strike yet? Nah? Just let me know when it’s time. We need to emulate the French. Beyond due.
Why is it that Federal employees have more strict rules for gifts than the corrupt assholes that make the laws? (Rhetorical) - Bad faith actors and empty suits have taken over and exist only to expand the interests of the rich and corporations. It’s a race to the bottom, and we’re the ones that will suffer for it.
If it’s illegal to take a lunch, then it’d be illegal to accept $4 million dollars worth of “gifts” from a person with multiple standings before the SCOTUS. It’s not absurd when it’s expected.
I mean - our (commercial) company defined it in fairly reasonable terms. If it’s more than $50 you have to report it.
You can go on business lunch/dinner but it can’t be extravagant.
They can easily do this for government and I am pretty sure they won’t risk their job for $50.
You can go and have a lunch to discuss something and have the lobbyist pay for your sandwich, but that doesn’t make you obligated to them.
Interestingly, in both private and Publix sectors, a thank you gift IS acceptable if it's within a certain dollar amount. I believe it's in the $25 to $50 range.
18 U.S. Code § 666, fitting number for the code essentially making bribery legal. Must be nice when half the cabinet is accepting tokens of appreciation by the boatload.
Those poor "justices"- with an absolutely secure lifetime position surely we can understand them wanting to, shall we say, "supplement" their incomes in ways that, for the rest of us, might be construed as "pay for play".
The crazy part is they are trying to say that officials were barred from taking gifts like a plague for the work they’ve done or a picture frame when in reality this case was about a Mayor who after pushing city contracts to a truck dealership worth over $1M, that truck dealer gave him $13,000 as a thank you for doing it.
Any reasonable person sees this as a bribe and wrong. The court just ruled it’s perfectly acceptable. Basically telling every public official that if you have the power to do something, you can do it and then get paid by the person you directly benefited afterwards with zero consequences. It’s bribery with extra steps
I don’t think of it as a bribe; instead, I call it strategic lobbying with the expressed purpose of achieving some agreed upon end that will be mutually beneficial for the present version of myself and the future version as well. It is only a bribe if you lack the clout and are too poor to pay it.
Am I stupid or does the law literally say “influenced or rewarded”? Like: influence comes before, reward comes after. Yes it prohibits bribes, but it also prohibits REWARDS. No one gives a reward before you actually do the thing. How is the answer “no it doesn’t regulate what happens after” when it literally states that it influences what happens after?
I work in an industry with rules like this and it allows modest gifts. Basically tokens of appreciation which would not real world value are ok. Gift cards absolutely forbidden. I can’t even accept a 10 dollar gift card to Starbucks from a vendor when they were the only organization I could purchase what I needed. In that location.
So screw this decision.
I find it interesting that they say you can't receive a bribe BEFORE you take an action you'd be fried for, per subsection 666 of title 18, yet make it clear that gifts AFTER you perform an action are totally fine.
In other words, if you want to influence someone in government, pay them only AFTER they vote your way.
...Which would have been the smart way to do business anyway...
Like most things with the Supreme Court, the solution here is simple. Make the law even more explicit. but they can't because Congress is completely and totally frozen
For fu... look. My job reminded me on a yearly basis that if I ever received anything, even so much as a soda from a vending machine, bought for me by an outside party that might in anyway be trying to gain favors I had to report it to the ethics department. I didn't have to turn it down in the moment, as to save face, but it was on the company to decide if the action was appropriate.
I was a line worker. A LINE WORKER. If a random factory worker is held to that standard, why the fuck isn't a government official?
Fucking rich assholes feeling like they aren't rich enough.
They should have to have every cent they can earn, spend, and pass on to their children watched and controlled by the same government they work for. You want to control people? Well you first will be one of the people controlled. If the ship goes down, it will take you out first.
In any position for any job, period, all compensation is a bribe to do that thing. As such, someone in government should only receive money from one source, the government.
It's a key to power thing.
You must first control the treasure, then you must share the treasure with your keys. If your keys can get treasure from somewhere else, they are no longer YOUR keys, and you are no longer in power.
In government? Government money. Leaving government? Government money. Long after working in government? Government money.
If a person needs money after working for government, where do you think it will come from? Do you think that source might have reason to promise better treasure if they do things for them while in office? Well it looks like you'll need to watch their spending and pay them government money forever. Otherwise they don't need you.
The Supreme Corrupt jackasses appointed by the fakely "christian" GOP are taking issue with section *666?* I dunno about you, but that seems sorta sus on its face. Like the elder gods puppeting the SBC and its Federalist Society stooges have simply lost patience and are betting that their cultists won't say boo because they psychologically *can't* speak against the forces that have rooted them at the risk of whatever is left of their souls.
Many of you might not remember it but in the 1990’s Republican talk radio really pushed the idea that bribery should be legal. They claimed that it make government much more efficient. Back the republicans were still able to generate independent thoughts and rejected it. Today, they would 100% support it.
So how long before it becomes normal to carry gratuity gift cards to give to the police for not arresting you for crimes you didn’t commit?
Term limits! Ethics rules with teeth and consequences. Clarence Thomas is soo. living with batshit Jinny in the stinky skanky RV. Now that is justice--supremely.
It's ok to flagrantly commit all the quid pro quo you want because you said it was ok and not at all a bribe? 😐
Thomas and Alito have already been committing the grift for YEARS. Now they are saying "oh yeah, all those 'gifts' from my 'friends' were for... how great of a job I did!"
This is not only corrupt, it's flagrantly insulting.
This isn't red or blue bullshit. These fuckers are supposed to represent the highest professional standards in US law and, in their professional opinion, they can't see any problems with the quid pro quo here? This is just bribery with more steps!
For fuck sake, Thomas and Alito didn't even recuse themselves? They got to weight in on this? The very same guys that were taking free million dollar trips and RV's as ~~bribes~~ 'gifts' YEARS before any of this? Now they can just say "pay my cashier as you leave the court" and BINGO, no corruption folks! What bribes!? It's just part of the process!! We said it was fine!
When the high court is no longer capable of distinguishing actual justice from blatant corruption, the American people must stand up and demand their immediate resignations. Toss the whole lot! They are clearly not able to fulfill the position they have been assigned.
A bribe and token of appreciation are not the same thing.
A bribe is payment in advance of an action. A gratuity is a ‘thank you’ after the fact.
I realize that if one is promised that the gratuity is coming later, it functions basically the same as a bribe, but technically by definition they are different.
literally just took a corporate compliance course that specifically explains why we are forbidden from giving/receiving these types of gifts
if i could bribe customers my job would be so much easier. the company holding me back in this way feels unfair and i will be taking my case all the way to the Supreme Court.
I'm a server. I have to pay taxes on the gratuities I receive. Does SCOTUS also have to pay taxes on their gratuities? Wait, don't answer that. I think I already know.
Fed employee here. Turn down dinner and drinks from people doing business with us without a second thought. No brainer. When I worked for a state agency, same thing. It’s wrong on all levels. Completely unacceptable and everyone knows it. You don’t trade in your work for freebies.
So as long as I give a politician a Picasso it’s just some art that’s lying around but a pretty picture I can gift it to let’s face it some dude and later on down the road I might get some stock tips before a thing in congress or senate happens?
By the behalf of the ultra rich we thank you poor people, people that think they’re middle and the millionaires that think they are the 1% but just the new middle. We love screwing you over while you concentrate on gun control, abortion, civil rights/liberties while we steal from you right and left. I know this is a lot but please don’t stop watching shows about us because we need you to keep glued and keep buying our shit so we can live the lives you want to watch us live hoping someday you could one day have it.
First off, I think the USSC is corrupt - Thomas, Alito and Kavanaugh to be particular. However, in this case, I think that the operative word is 'after'. The 'gratuity' is given after the act and is already covered by state and municipal laws or ethics guidelines and must still be reported. The president routinely gets gifts (which could be construed as gratuities) during state visits and needs to report all of them, no matter how small. A bribe implies that a payment will be made 'before' the act to enable it to happen. Is there a very fine line that has probably been crossed routinely? I'm sure it has and will. IANAL but it makes sense.
A bribe is a bribe, whether it's given before or after. If you don't give the expected bribe after service was rendered, then you won't be able to bribe in the future, and future acts may potentially not go in your favor. From a business perspective it's a complete no-brainer to always deliver on the bribe. It's just a cost of doing business in that case.
Well I guess that's where we differ. If there is a possibility I won't get paid after deliberately influenced a policy in your favor I'm not going to do it. Why should they pay if it;'s already done to their satisfaction? What are you going to do? Sue them? I think not. All of the FBI stings I have seen are bribes offered BEFORE the act.
The act has already been enacted then. What incentive is there for anyone to pay after? The gratuities are legal for precisely that. Can you make an agreement beforehand to pay or get a gratuity? Sure you can, but again, that would be considered bribery which is illegal. If done after, the bribing power is under no obligation to pay or offer 'gratuities'. Could it happen? Yes. But illogical. They do not precipitate the act as the act is already done.
In respect to #1 in the definition below, it is in return for a service. Just like tipping, it is not mandatory. The influencer might just follow #2 and not tip. Is tipping legal? Yes. However, Reddit is full of posts moaning about tipping culture but it is a voluntary act.
What you are describing is influencing someone to do something and it gets done. There may be an intention of services and payment of services. Problem is, intentions are almost impossible to prove in court, especially after the fact. Ethically? It's going to be a no-no. But then you have the Clarences out there that just don't give a fuck and will side with Harlan either way.
So, since gratuitites, because they are after the fact, and not bribes they are covered by ethics policies and the Ethics Acts.
I will concede that it's the "one small trick" that lobbyists use all of the time. but they don't always get what they pay for, and they generally spread the cash to those that are going to vote their way anyway. Should they be outlawed? I give an enthusiastic yes. As well as all PAC's, which are also just legalized bribery. It's also why Congress, the President and the USSC have to disclose gifts. The USSC, however, "are not subject to the Judicial Conference’s interpretations of the ethics law". Basically a SC get out of jail free card.
gratuity /grə-too͞′ĭ-tē, -tyoo͞′-/
# noun
1. A favor or gift, usually in the form of money, given in return for service.
2. Something given freely or without recompense; a free gift; a present. Similar: [present](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=present definition&ia=definition)
3. Something voluntarily given in return for a favor or service, as a recompense or acknowledgment.
[https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/what-gifts-must-supreme-court-justices-disclose](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/what-gifts-must-supreme-court-justices-disclose)
>The act has already been enacted then. What incentive is there for anyone to pay after?
You act like these are one-time things. We already know that it's a long pattern of behavior. They pay because they want future bribes to go smoothly. The benefits generally far outweigh the relatively small cost of the bribe. This is not rocket science and the rest of your comment is just ridiculous.
They make it sound like refusing such things is an oppressively difficult burden, and unreasonable to ask of a public official.
Supreme Court Justices have to survive on a measly 300,000 dollar salary. That's barely enough for 4 cars and a summer home. Do you want them to live like peasants and have a Florida summerhouse in a gated community that isn't waterfront. /s
Yeah, do you know how much diesel for a motor coach or luggage for empty jet seats costs?
In a career that is nearly guaranteed until death or departure, with only the smallest chance of getting fired - read: impeached, at least in the current political environment.
Imagine how often they pull the "do you know who I am?" card.
Just give it a few years and it'll be waterfront
Who the fuck is vacationing here in the summer? Lmao
[28.5 million people per summer, which is almost 90% of the numbers in Spring (peak tourist season)](https://myfloridacfo.com/floridas-seasonal-tourism-pattern)
A buddy of mine has been in the public official world for years.. we caught up one time, he was not in office... he worked for a congressman but locally only... he did intend to run for office and now is... At that time, where he was simply an employee of the congressman office... he refused to allow me to cover lunch. I was a performer at the time and wanted to comp him a ticket to a 10 dollar show as well... he refused that too. This is not difficult to do.
My girlfriend just had a meeting with her city mayor and she wanted to bring some of her products as gifts, but they all refused due to same reasons. It's sad that the people that represent/make decisions for 40-50k people (in this case) follow the rules and are under more scrutiny vs the people that represent/make decisions for the whole country.
I had dinner with a public defender recently and he was quite upset about this. We both wondered what happened to the old standard of avoiding even the appearance of impropriety.
Federal employees in general are limited to the $20/$50 rule: $20 limit on any single gift, $50 limit on the total gifts from one source in a year. Basically, 3 burger lunches a year from one contractor.
Oh, you’re allowed to *accept* physical gifts but they *immediately* become property of the government. Meals and other intangibles are *verboten*. It’s SOP for all government employees
I work for the state at a low level. I had to do conflict of interest training that stated even the appearance of grift is prohibited. I cant even take trash because it could be interpreted as grift.
There is a difference between, say, someone taking you to lunch at Chipotle to say thanks, and someone taking you out to dinner at Dorsia to say thanks. This is why a lot of federal agencies put a straight up (low) dollar amount on it. You can accept anything up to $50 in value, and that’s it. That’s what a gratuity is supposed to mean. Not a Lamborghini. And that’s what the decision is saying. The problem is, when you have Thomas accepting waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more than a lunch at Applebee’s, this otherwise very valid reasoning kind of falls flat.
Shit, I'm a contractor and can't accept gifts AT ALL. Not lunch, not donuts, not coffee.
Is that a constraint from your contracting company? Because I work at the federal level and we go by the fixed dollar amount when doing our annual ethics training.
No, it comes from our agency.
Once it was said that a cold sandwich and a warm beer isn't a bribe, but a warm sandwich and a cold beer might be.
Instead of a lunch at Applebee's, Thomas got lunch above a yacht while the Billionaire stuffing money into his pockets.
They are attempting to obfuscate this case. Any reasonable person would completely understand how it's supposed to work, but they are trying to make the case that it's all or nothing. Having lunch is fine, even though I've turned down having my meal paid for; receiving a picture, plaque, small token of appreciation is all fine. None of the things I'm listed would ever be seen as a "bribe", especially considering there's a black and white hard line of $50 you can't cross. The point is that the sentiment is worth more than the actual dollar value.
My dad worked for the city as an inspector when I was growing up. He couldn't so much as grab a cup of coffee from the pot sitting on site or accept a pen.
"... or R.V.'s ..." – Clarence Thomas
It's called a MOTORCOACH, goddammit! /s
Praise white Jesus!
Uncle Clarence (no relation).
Well, for starters a RV is built on a LIGHT TRUCK CHASSIS!
“…or trips overseas priced at hundreds of thousands of dollars, or a thousand dollar bottle of alcohol… all perfectly normal and of course doesn’t affect my opinions on this or any other matter.”
What do you think gratuities are if not things of value intended to reward?
[I'm just gonna drop a link here to a study that found a correlation between different countries' pro-tipping culture and increased instances corruption.](https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/9491448/Here's-a-Tip_Torfason,Flynn,Kupor-Tipping-and-Bribery-6-6-12-SPPS.pdf) I'm sure 6/9 SCOTUS justices would love to have their clerks print it out and leave it in their bathrooms to wipe their asses with it, on top of the stack of copies of the US Constitution.
It’s the question of the order of operation. Like obviously you can’t just take money from a group and vote a certain way. What if you vote a certain way and then get paid? I know it seems silly on its face, but bribes are usually things given up front and gratuities on the back end. One of the more fishy ones has always been the payments that come after one leaves office. My local city paid to build an NFL football team stadium on the counties dime. One of the council members has since been voted out and has a lifelong position with the team now that he’s left office. The guy has his own room with a plaque on the door, but no one‘s ever actually seen him show up for work.
That's their logic. My logic is I don't train my dog by giving it a treat *before* it sits, now do I?
That is an amazingly good way to frame it.
If you continue reading, this decision came from a change in law Congress made. Originally the text forbade both bribes and gratuities.... But later on gratuities were dropped. Congress did a stupid, not the court.
That's definitely suspect. It's exactly the sort of thing that Congress has tried to outlaw, "the appearance of corruption," and that the court has said no one can do anything about.
The original language forbid both bribes and gratituities, but then they changed it removing the language forbidding gratituities. Congress did a stupid not the court.
"I will gladly pay you Tuesday for legislation today" said every potential briber after this ruling.
*"I'm not bribing you. I'm just saying I have a policy of giving 10k bonuses to people who rule in my favor. You can do whatever you want with that information! But it's definitely not a bribe!"*
Yea, there’s the “out.” You can only accept gifts/bribes AFTER the fact
Well their Dear Leader keeps saying he's going to drop taxes on tips, so I'm guessing they'd happily call all kinds of things "gratuities"
“To Insure Prompt Service” takes on a whole new meaning in this context, huh
I love how in my line of work (doctor), there's so much red tape around accepting gifts from private agencies like pharmaceutical companies that even accepting pens treads on being reportable...but they get to take whatever they want? Ridiculous.
I'm in IT and couldn't even accept a coffee from a vendor because we had a public tender open and they might apply ans if successful that €5 coffee xoukd be called a bribe
Ditto. We have to take a yearly course on the possible penalties of accepting anything from vendors
Same. I don't even do any customer/government relations or procurement, but EVERYONE in my (large multinational) company has to take a yearly "don't bribe, don't accept bribes" course with really strict definitions on what can be considered a "bribe".
Right? I was a corporate ecom professional and we were absolutely forbidden to accept ANYTHING from any vendor
At the time I was what is called semi-state, or QUANGO..so a public body outside thats not exactly civil service, as in teh ge eral oublic woukdntnrecieve services from us but the company receives financial funding from the government. Then I moved to a bank and it was pretty much the same, then insurance, again the same. With insurance as a manager I was told that any gifts I did recieve (usually at christmas)must be given to HR who would then distribute to lower level staff. Instead I took them and gave them to my direct reports.
Yeah. I’ve been a compliance officer on the other side of this fence and the government scrutiny, both here and abroad under the FCPA is obscene. Yet, it seems that I can create a pattern of behaviour here now that will encourage people to support our business knowing that gratuities will be showered upon them after the deal is done. Negligent and corrupt.
Mostly corrupt. Intentionally.
I hate to agree with you. But I do. 100%
Must be hard to witness
I’m a teacher and some school districts don’t allow gifts or limit the amount. I believe my profession it’s important but not at the level of a Supreme Court justice.
And conveniently, they're in a special position to cater to billionaires.
*They get to decide that they get to take whatever they want. That's like double extra bad corruption.
Same for public sector engineering. If a meeting has a catered lunch, then I have to fill out paperwork.
I am surprised you are allowed at all. We are banned outright. No pens for us. To be fair, some of our docs were earning more on speaking engagements than practicing medicine.
The law must be different for hospitals; my regional hospital chain regularly has pharma reps dropping thousands on restaurant catering. My wife used to work reception at that hospital and got steak dinner delivered to her all the time by pharma sales reps. I was working in restaurants at the time, and I had to cook that massive $2000 call-in order with no notice!
Oh, they certainly can do meals and certain gifts...but they're all strictly reportable. The hospital needs to sign off on those (obviously), and then if it's pharm sponsored there legally needs to be a sign in form to note which providers came to the meal. All those provider names get submitted to the government for transparency. And they have to be *extremely* careful about these gifts/meals. The value of the meals (per person) can't exceed a fixed amount. All docs need to take a yearly course on Stark Law regarding this. It's annoying and boring, but we all do it.
Yeah - a gift card is the same as a billionaire buying Clerance Thomas's moms house and letting her live there for free, international vacations on private jets and RV'S. GTFO of here
Or paying for his family member's school tuition. No biggie.
Did they say how much was on the gift card?
Zeros dont count, right?
It was one dollar then.
The Court refuses to take the steps to regulate gifts, etc., knowing that the states won’t legislate it, under the guise of states’ rights, This is jurisprudence cowardice and, in fact, legalizes bribes.
Maybe I’m going out on a limb here, but could there potentially maybe be some level of conflict of interest with a court deciding how a law about gifts to themselves should be interpreted?
Yes, of course there is. Did any of the justices recuse themselves? Of course not.
Where there is no enforcement, there is no law.
 Nah it seems totally non corrupt 😕
Why would Clarence Thomas want bribery to be legal? Gee, that's a stumper, the world may never know.
If you decide to take a lifetime job with great pay and benefits, then don't take ANY gifts or side deals, nothing. If you don't like that then you are free to quit the job and do something else. This is not too much to ask. This goes for congress too. If you want to work in congress, then no gifts, no side deals, no buying stock, nothing. If you don't like it quit and do something else.
The best part is that in that case the defendant received a “token of appreciation” in the form of $13,000 cash. But go on about lunches and shit, kavanaugh. Clearly you’re just calling balls and strikes.
He's calling balls and strikes...this just happened to be a strike about 12 feet away from the plate.
I'm sure some of those lunches were *significantly* more than 13k.
It's great that Trump is promising to make ~~bribes~~ gratuities tax free.
There it is--"State and local officials" and "State and local governments". Nothing about federal employees like them. What do you want, an interpretive dance?
That would actually be great. You first. I can’t wait!!
Ok, now they need to define lobbying.
A reminder, your mail carrier cannot accept gifts over 20 dollars. You know that guy that delivers 30 packs of monster drinks to your door.
They just have, no legitimacy anymore. An entire branch of the government has made itself irrelevant as their rulings are so antithetical to the root law they pull from, you just have to ignore them at this point. The Supreme Court should be ignored at this point.
Is there anything that could handle this unprecedented situation?
Agis IV had an answer for his ephors
Wait, wut?
"Snyder’s absurd and atextual reading of the statute is one only today’s Court could love." - Jackson
They were arguing bribery was wrong. And I took personal offense to that Alito & Thomas
For context 666(a)(1)(B) only applies to gifts greater than $5000. Who thinks a $5000 gift is a "common place gratuite"? The official in the case received a check for $13,000 from an organization he gave a $1.1 m contract to.
Section 666. The far right loves that number. /S
You can find the answer to this question in literally every corporate training on bribery.
[удалено]
"What if the framed picture is hung in a new motorcoach?"
In the government we have legit ethics training and they call it the ”coffee cup rule” if you don’t want it, then you can most likely have it.
What about RVs, hunting vacations and private high school tuition packages, Mr. Thomas?
It's not absurd. It's not even surprising. It's exactly what you would expect from a criminal judge.
It's ridiculous, they should be held to the same standard as federal employees. I know I work for the fed for a department that's very likely to receive bribes as opposed to some others... our gift limit is $10. That also includes just giving fellow coworkers gifts or even if you were to offer to buy lunch.
...and there, my Republican friends, is how the swamp is filled. Well, that and the Citizens United ruling that gave corporations civilian rights, and the ability to donate whatever they want to a political campaign. If you truly want to drain the swamp, you first have to unclog the trash in the republican party that is blocking the drain.
No bribes, only gratuities for a job well done. Makes perfect sense, because I'm sure they had absolutely no idea what outcome the person paying gratuities wanted...
He did some consulting work for them. He advised them on how much they needed to pay him to get that city money.
These really are two different things. Bribes and gratuities usually have different statues governing n them. The only question is whether the statute in question covered both or only bribes.
Dismantling democracy piece by piece. Bribing needs to be legal because it's how Trump's version of the world operates. Quid pro quo and kissing ass to prove your loyalty to the crown. Next is gay marriage and contraception. You all need to vote down ballot blue in every god damn election to have any fighting chance to *legally* save democracy.
The section to do with selling your soul is 666. Outstanding!
Remember kids, you can't give a Congressman an all-expense paid vacation to the Bahamas to get them to vote for the legislation you want passed. BUT you can give a Congressman an all-expense paid vacation to the Bahamas as a token of appreciation after they vote to pass legislation you wanted passed. And if you IMPLY before the vote that you always give tokens of appreciations to your friends AND if word gets around Capitol Hill that you take good care of your friends in Congress... well that's just what friends are for!
Ain’t nobody questioning a gift card or a photo. It’s the 250K RVs and the jets and the champagne bubbles vacations
As a low level government employee, I could’ve been accepting “gratuities” my whole fucking career??
No. Especially not if you visit this sub and have to ask that question.
In the military (USCG ) I’m speaking from working for the government they pound it in us that you can not accept ANY gift that cost more than $25. As in if say we save someone’s life from a boat on fire and they feel so inclined that they want to think the people who have kept them alive and breathing. We have to decline it or we as lowly workers for the government would be in so much trouble up to including being discharged and lose everything we have worked for. But I guess if you make the rules they can be what ever you want them to be. Laws for thee not for me. All the way for them
Welp, it turns out that justice ilikebeer also likes twisting himself into a pretzel
"in this case" was straight up $13,000 in cash LMAO.
“It’s not a bribe because I don’t get paid until after.”
Everyone ready for a General Strike yet? Nah? Just let me know when it’s time. We need to emulate the French. Beyond due. Why is it that Federal employees have more strict rules for gifts than the corrupt assholes that make the laws? (Rhetorical) - Bad faith actors and empty suits have taken over and exist only to expand the interests of the rich and corporations. It’s a race to the bottom, and we’re the ones that will suffer for it.
You asked me if I like beer. I do.
My federal anti-bribery training I have to take every year says exactly the fucking opposite, so ...
If it’s illegal to take a lunch, then it’d be illegal to accept $4 million dollars worth of “gifts” from a person with multiple standings before the SCOTUS. It’s not absurd when it’s expected.
Where can I find this document in full?
Look’s like they don’t want to give up those 24K solid gold plaques and $10k gift cards‼️😳😳
Meanwhile, I can't even accept lunch from a customer without getting fired. It's we aspire to be french
Well I guess I should start taking opposing counsel up on his offers to treat me to lobster and steak buffets lol
$3,000,00.00 gift card, NO PROBLEM! 🤮
I am held to higher standards at my office
I mean - our (commercial) company defined it in fairly reasonable terms. If it’s more than $50 you have to report it. You can go on business lunch/dinner but it can’t be extravagant. They can easily do this for government and I am pretty sure they won’t risk their job for $50. You can go and have a lunch to discuss something and have the lobbyist pay for your sandwich, but that doesn’t make you obligated to them.
Therefore, it certainly doesn’t apply to 6 Supreme Court justices. I mean 9.
Sounds like he specifically doesn't want it illegal at the level he occupies...
SCOTUS is a direct artery to policy capture. They all deserve prison
Criminals believe crime should not be illegal. Not a shock. The shock is the job the criminals have.
Interestingly, in both private and Publix sectors, a thank you gift IS acceptable if it's within a certain dollar amount. I believe it's in the $25 to $50 range.
Can my gratuities to judges be gold plated? Asking for a friend
18 U.S. Code § 666, fitting number for the code essentially making bribery legal. Must be nice when half the cabinet is accepting tokens of appreciation by the boatload.
Hey now, that code is what makes it *illegal*. It's the Supreme Court going "nuh uh!" to that part that is the problem.
All of "originalism" is comical because it is inherently a-historical. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights
You don’t want them to show bias by refusing gifts
Those poor "justices"- with an absolutely secure lifetime position surely we can understand them wanting to, shall we say, "supplement" their incomes in ways that, for the rest of us, might be construed as "pay for play".
The crazy part is they are trying to say that officials were barred from taking gifts like a plague for the work they’ve done or a picture frame when in reality this case was about a Mayor who after pushing city contracts to a truck dealership worth over $1M, that truck dealer gave him $13,000 as a thank you for doing it. Any reasonable person sees this as a bribe and wrong. The court just ruled it’s perfectly acceptable. Basically telling every public official that if you have the power to do something, you can do it and then get paid by the person you directly benefited afterwards with zero consequences. It’s bribery with extra steps
More like.. one extra step.
I don’t think of it as a bribe; instead, I call it strategic lobbying with the expressed purpose of achieving some agreed upon end that will be mutually beneficial for the present version of myself and the future version as well. It is only a bribe if you lack the clout and are too poor to pay it.
Am I stupid or does the law literally say “influenced or rewarded”? Like: influence comes before, reward comes after. Yes it prohibits bribes, but it also prohibits REWARDS. No one gives a reward before you actually do the thing. How is the answer “no it doesn’t regulate what happens after” when it literally states that it influences what happens after?
I work in an industry with rules like this and it allows modest gifts. Basically tokens of appreciation which would not real world value are ok. Gift cards absolutely forbidden. I can’t even accept a 10 dollar gift card to Starbucks from a vendor when they were the only organization I could purchase what I needed. In that location. So screw this decision.
Demagoguery bullshit
I love it. They're telling us about all the perks they get in that decision. Lol I never went to law school but really!
I find it interesting that they say you can't receive a bribe BEFORE you take an action you'd be fried for, per subsection 666 of title 18, yet make it clear that gifts AFTER you perform an action are totally fine. In other words, if you want to influence someone in government, pay them only AFTER they vote your way. ...Which would have been the smart way to do business anyway...
OP Christmas Card = Bribe
Tip your Congressman.
The States' Rights to be bribed.
But motor homes are ok?
Like most things with the Supreme Court, the solution here is simple. Make the law even more explicit. but they can't because Congress is completely and totally frozen
13,000$ gratuity. Fuck this corrupt court
Yo we had a meeting and we all decided that gifts aren’t bribes. *Drives away in gold plated RV full of money*
Oh, how quaint it t’was back then.
For fu... look. My job reminded me on a yearly basis that if I ever received anything, even so much as a soda from a vending machine, bought for me by an outside party that might in anyway be trying to gain favors I had to report it to the ethics department. I didn't have to turn it down in the moment, as to save face, but it was on the company to decide if the action was appropriate. I was a line worker. A LINE WORKER. If a random factory worker is held to that standard, why the fuck isn't a government official? Fucking rich assholes feeling like they aren't rich enough. They should have to have every cent they can earn, spend, and pass on to their children watched and controlled by the same government they work for. You want to control people? Well you first will be one of the people controlled. If the ship goes down, it will take you out first. In any position for any job, period, all compensation is a bribe to do that thing. As such, someone in government should only receive money from one source, the government. It's a key to power thing. You must first control the treasure, then you must share the treasure with your keys. If your keys can get treasure from somewhere else, they are no longer YOUR keys, and you are no longer in power. In government? Government money. Leaving government? Government money. Long after working in government? Government money. If a person needs money after working for government, where do you think it will come from? Do you think that source might have reason to promise better treasure if they do things for them while in office? Well it looks like you'll need to watch their spending and pay them government money forever. Otherwise they don't need you.
I wasn’t allowed to accept anything as a nursing assistant making barely enough to make rent but this is ok?
Note that the case involved a $13,000 gift. This treatment of the issue is what's called "fighting the hypothetical."
Section 666 of Title 18 is one of the bribery statutes? That’s got be fake, right?
The Supreme Corrupt jackasses appointed by the fakely "christian" GOP are taking issue with section *666?* I dunno about you, but that seems sorta sus on its face. Like the elder gods puppeting the SBC and its Federalist Society stooges have simply lost patience and are betting that their cultists won't say boo because they psychologically *can't* speak against the forces that have rooted them at the risk of whatever is left of their souls.
For some reason this reminds me of a line from Jesus Christ Superstar, "It isn't blood money, it's a fee, nothing more" Nothing to see here
Next they'll call Kickback as "doing a solid"
Bribes come before a decision, tokens of appreciation come after. I'd like to see them both banned.
My god, he is a moron.
Thank you cards are acceptable. Thank you cards with two first class tickets to Fiji are even more acceptable.
Good time to remind everyone that - if nothing else - presidents pick the Supreme Court nominees
**SCOTUS:** *”We’re above the law, why shouldn’t other officials be also, in America’s blossoming dictatorship?”*
Many of you might not remember it but in the 1990’s Republican talk radio really pushed the idea that bribery should be legal. They claimed that it make government much more efficient. Back the republicans were still able to generate independent thoughts and rejected it. Today, they would 100% support it. So how long before it becomes normal to carry gratuity gift cards to give to the police for not arresting you for crimes you didn’t commit?
Term limits! Ethics rules with teeth and consequences. Clarence Thomas is soo. living with batshit Jinny in the stinky skanky RV. Now that is justice--supremely.
FUNNY HOW THEY LEFT OUT THE FEDERAL LEVEL
So, get pay then do the thing= illegal. Do the thing then get pay= legal. Just clearing that up.
Alito and Thomas are celebrating now that the court has codified taking "bribes" after the fact, not before.
It's ok to flagrantly commit all the quid pro quo you want because you said it was ok and not at all a bribe? 😐 Thomas and Alito have already been committing the grift for YEARS. Now they are saying "oh yeah, all those 'gifts' from my 'friends' were for... how great of a job I did!" This is not only corrupt, it's flagrantly insulting. This isn't red or blue bullshit. These fuckers are supposed to represent the highest professional standards in US law and, in their professional opinion, they can't see any problems with the quid pro quo here? This is just bribery with more steps! For fuck sake, Thomas and Alito didn't even recuse themselves? They got to weight in on this? The very same guys that were taking free million dollar trips and RV's as ~~bribes~~ 'gifts' YEARS before any of this? Now they can just say "pay my cashier as you leave the court" and BINGO, no corruption folks! What bribes!? It's just part of the process!! We said it was fine! When the high court is no longer capable of distinguishing actual justice from blatant corruption, the American people must stand up and demand their immediate resignations. Toss the whole lot! They are clearly not able to fulfill the position they have been assigned.
A bribe and token of appreciation are not the same thing. A bribe is payment in advance of an action. A gratuity is a ‘thank you’ after the fact. I realize that if one is promised that the gratuity is coming later, it functions basically the same as a bribe, but technically by definition they are different.
666 is the number associated with being able to legally buy judges in America.... sounds like hell to me.
Don’t forget to tip your bought and paid for politician.
literally just took a corporate compliance course that specifically explains why we are forbidden from giving/receiving these types of gifts if i could bribe customers my job would be so much easier. the company holding me back in this way feels unfair and i will be taking my case all the way to the Supreme Court.
I'm a server. I have to pay taxes on the gratuities I receive. Does SCOTUS also have to pay taxes on their gratuities? Wait, don't answer that. I think I already know.
It is amusing that they rewrote subsection 666. Deals with the devil perhaps? Lol 🤣
The irony of it being “section 666” isn’t lost
They ruled that it is only a bribe if it is agreed to before the act. I lack words to express how stupid that is.
Its not comical. They are taking America apart, brick by brick. It's watching a "unified reich" being constructed, and that's not funny at all.
So can an altruistic billionaire or company bribe these fuckers into some change for the greater good?
Awesome. If I wind up in court, I can’t bribe my judge but he does except tips. Good to know.
Ah yes, after helping my company I can give the local senator a $15,000 of my appreciation, legally
section 666
They spelled grifts wrong
Fed employee here. Turn down dinner and drinks from people doing business with us without a second thought. No brainer. When I worked for a state agency, same thing. It’s wrong on all levels. Completely unacceptable and everyone knows it. You don’t trade in your work for freebies.
So as long as I give a politician a Picasso it’s just some art that’s lying around but a pretty picture I can gift it to let’s face it some dude and later on down the road I might get some stock tips before a thing in congress or senate happens? By the behalf of the ultra rich we thank you poor people, people that think they’re middle and the millionaires that think they are the 1% but just the new middle. We love screwing you over while you concentrate on gun control, abortion, civil rights/liberties while we steal from you right and left. I know this is a lot but please don’t stop watching shows about us because we need you to keep glued and keep buying our shit so we can live the lives you want to watch us live hoping someday you could one day have it.
First off, I think the USSC is corrupt - Thomas, Alito and Kavanaugh to be particular. However, in this case, I think that the operative word is 'after'. The 'gratuity' is given after the act and is already covered by state and municipal laws or ethics guidelines and must still be reported. The president routinely gets gifts (which could be construed as gratuities) during state visits and needs to report all of them, no matter how small. A bribe implies that a payment will be made 'before' the act to enable it to happen. Is there a very fine line that has probably been crossed routinely? I'm sure it has and will. IANAL but it makes sense.
A bribe is a bribe, whether it's given before or after. If you don't give the expected bribe after service was rendered, then you won't be able to bribe in the future, and future acts may potentially not go in your favor. From a business perspective it's a complete no-brainer to always deliver on the bribe. It's just a cost of doing business in that case.
No the best business decision is to get paid up front. Net 30 doesn't really work here.
That doesn't make sense. It absolutely makes sense to get paid after when you can do so with legal cover.
Well I guess that's where we differ. If there is a possibility I won't get paid after deliberately influenced a policy in your favor I'm not going to do it. Why should they pay if it;'s already done to their satisfaction? What are you going to do? Sue them? I think not. All of the FBI stings I have seen are bribes offered BEFORE the act.
I already told you why they should pay. You're just choosing to ignore it.
The act has already been enacted then. What incentive is there for anyone to pay after? The gratuities are legal for precisely that. Can you make an agreement beforehand to pay or get a gratuity? Sure you can, but again, that would be considered bribery which is illegal. If done after, the bribing power is under no obligation to pay or offer 'gratuities'. Could it happen? Yes. But illogical. They do not precipitate the act as the act is already done. In respect to #1 in the definition below, it is in return for a service. Just like tipping, it is not mandatory. The influencer might just follow #2 and not tip. Is tipping legal? Yes. However, Reddit is full of posts moaning about tipping culture but it is a voluntary act. What you are describing is influencing someone to do something and it gets done. There may be an intention of services and payment of services. Problem is, intentions are almost impossible to prove in court, especially after the fact. Ethically? It's going to be a no-no. But then you have the Clarences out there that just don't give a fuck and will side with Harlan either way. So, since gratuitites, because they are after the fact, and not bribes they are covered by ethics policies and the Ethics Acts. I will concede that it's the "one small trick" that lobbyists use all of the time. but they don't always get what they pay for, and they generally spread the cash to those that are going to vote their way anyway. Should they be outlawed? I give an enthusiastic yes. As well as all PAC's, which are also just legalized bribery. It's also why Congress, the President and the USSC have to disclose gifts. The USSC, however, "are not subject to the Judicial Conference’s interpretations of the ethics law". Basically a SC get out of jail free card. gratuity /grə-too͞′ĭ-tē, -tyoo͞′-/ # noun 1. A favor or gift, usually in the form of money, given in return for service. 2. Something given freely or without recompense; a free gift; a present. Similar: [present](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=present definition&ia=definition) 3. Something voluntarily given in return for a favor or service, as a recompense or acknowledgment. [https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/what-gifts-must-supreme-court-justices-disclose](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/what-gifts-must-supreme-court-justices-disclose)
>The act has already been enacted then. What incentive is there for anyone to pay after? You act like these are one-time things. We already know that it's a long pattern of behavior. They pay because they want future bribes to go smoothly. The benefits generally far outweigh the relatively small cost of the bribe. This is not rocket science and the rest of your comment is just ridiculous.