Red Mosquito

simple schoolboy wrote:

Seems past time for SCOTUS to revisit this issue, hope something in this vein gets kicked up to the federal courts.

hlniv wrote:So, for this homeless case, the conservative lawyers are trying to overturn a1962 decision that no criminal punishment can be made based on an involuntary status.

This seems dangerous to me

simple schoolboy wrote:We probably shouldn't have closed the asylums.

simple schoolboy wrote:

hlniv wrote:So, for this homeless case, the conservative lawyers are trying to overturn a 1962 decision that no criminal punishment can be made based on an involuntary status.

This seems dangerous to me

There's the status of needing to sleep without housing, and then there's the 'status' of having giant piles of garbage with hazmat tossed in. Seems like the oral arguments did not do a great job separating these.

We probably shouldn't have closed the asylums.

simple schoolboy wrote:One take away from the bump stock ban ruling is that Sotomayor and Trump have similar thoughts on executive rule making. Who cares about the legislative intent and limitations, I want it banned!

The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down part of a federal anti-corruption law that makes it a crime for state and local officials to take gifts valued at more than $5,000 from a donor who had previously been awarded lucrative contracts or other government benefits thanks to the efforts of the official.

By a 6-3 vote, the justices overturned the conviction of a former Indiana mayor who asked for and took a $13,000 payment from the owners of a local truck dealership after he helped them win $1.1 million in city contracts for the purchase of garbage trucks.

In ruling for the former mayor, the justices drew a distinction between bribery, which requires proof of an illegal deal, and a gratuity that can be a gift or a reward for a past favor. They said the officials may be charged and prosecuted for bribery, but not for taking money for past favors if there was no proof of an illicit deal.

“The question in this case is whether [the federal law] also makes it a crime for state and local officials to accept gratuities — for example, gift cards, lunches, plaques, books, framed photos or the like — that may be given as a token of appreciation after the official act. The answer is no,” said Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, writing for the majority.

Despite his reference to token gifts such as lunches and framed photos, the federal law was triggered only by payments of more than $5,000.

The ruling could have a broad impact. About 20 million local and state officials are covered by the federal anti-corruption law, including officials at hospitals and universities that receive federal funds.

Justice Department lawyers told the court that for nearly 40 years, the anti-bribery law has been understood to prohibit payments to officials that “rewarded” them for having steered contracts to the donors. But there are few prosecutions that rely entirely on an after-the-fact payment, they said.

McParadigm wrote:Supreme Court wipes out anti-corruption law that bars officials from taking gifts for past favors

The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down part of a federal anti-corruption law that makes it a crime for state and local officials to take gifts valued at more than $5,000 from a donor who had previously been awarded lucrative contracts or other government benefits thanks to the efforts of the official.

By a 6-3 vote, the justices overturned the conviction of a former Indiana mayor who asked for and took a $13,000 payment from the owners of a local truck dealership after he helped them win $1.1 million in city contracts for the purchase of garbage trucks.

In ruling for the former mayor, the justices drew a distinction between bribery, which requires proof of an illegal deal, and a gratuity that can be a gift or a reward for a past favor. They said the officials may be charged and prosecuted for bribery, but not for taking money for past favors if there was no proof of an illicit deal.

“The question in this case is whether [the federal law] also makes it a crime for state and local officials to accept gratuities — for example, gift cards, lunches, plaques, books, framed photos or the like — that may be given as a token of appreciation after the official act. The answer is no,” said Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, writing for the majority.

Despite his reference to token gifts such as lunches and framed photos, the federal law was triggered only by payments of more than $5,000.

The ruling could have a broad impact. About 20 million local and state officials are covered by the federal anti-corruption law, including officials at hospitals and universities that receive federal funds.

Justice Department lawyers told the court that for nearly 40 years, the anti-bribery law has been understood to prohibit payments to officials that “rewarded” them for having steered contracts to the donors. But there are few prosecutions that rely entirely on an after-the-fact payment, they said.

McParadigm wrote:Supreme Court wipes out anti-corruption law that bars officials from taking gifts for past favors

The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down part of a federal anti-corruption law that makes it a crime for state and local officials to take gifts valued at more than $5,000 from a donor who had previously been awarded lucrative contracts or other government benefits thanks to the efforts of the official.

By a 6-3 vote, the justices overturned the conviction of a former Indiana mayor who asked for and took a $13,000 payment from the owners of a local truck dealership after he helped them win $1.1 million in city contracts for the purchase of garbage trucks.

In ruling for the former mayor, the justices drew a distinction between bribery, which requires proof of an illegal deal, and a gratuity that can be a gift or a reward for a past favor. They said the officials may be charged and prosecuted for bribery, but not for taking money for past favors if there was no proof of an illicit deal.

“The question in this case is whether [the federal law] also makes it a crime for state and local officials to accept gratuities — for example, gift cards, lunches, plaques, books, framed photos or the like — that may be given as a token of appreciation after the official act. The answer is no,” said Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, writing for the majority.

Despite his reference to token gifts such as lunches and framed photos, the federal law was triggered only by payments of more than $5,000.

The ruling could have a broad impact. About 20 million local and state officials are covered by the federal anti-corruption law, including officials at hospitals and universities that receive federal funds.

Justice Department lawyers told the court that for nearly 40 years, the anti-bribery law has been understood to prohibit payments to officials that “rewarded” them for having steered contracts to the donors. But there are few prosecutions that rely entirely on an after-the-fact payment, they said.

simple schoolboy wrote:I can't imagine a Trump admin 'encouraging' social media to supress say, information about gender transition would get such a glib reaction. How would one gain standing for such a case?

McParadigm wrote:Supreme Court wipes out anti-corruption law that bars officials from taking gifts for past favors

The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down part of a federal anti-corruption law that makes it a crime for state and local officials to take gifts valued at more than $5,000 from a donor who had previously been awarded lucrative contracts or other government benefits thanks to the efforts of the official.

By a 6-3 vote, the justices overturned the conviction of a former Indiana mayor who asked for and took a $13,000 payment from the owners of a local truck dealership after he helped them win $1.1 million in city contracts for the purchase of garbage trucks.

In ruling for the former mayor, the justices drew a distinction between bribery, which requires proof of an illegal deal, and a gratuity that can be a gift or a reward for a past favor. They said the officials may be charged and prosecuted for bribery, but not for taking money for past favors if there was no proof of an illicit deal.

“The question in this case is whether [the federal law] also makes it a crime for state and local officials to accept gratuities — for example, gift cards, lunches, plaques, books, framed photos or the like — that may be given as a token of appreciation after the official act. The answer is no,” said Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, writing for the majority.

Despite his reference to token gifts such as lunches and framed photos, the federal law was triggered only by payments of more than $5,000.

The ruling could have a broad impact. About 20 million local and state officials are covered by the federal anti-corruption law, including officials at hospitals and universities that receive federal funds.

Justice Department lawyers told the court that for nearly 40 years, the anti-bribery law has been understood to prohibit payments to officials that “rewarded” them for having steered contracts to the donors. But there are few prosecutions that rely entirely on an after-the-fact payment, they said.

B wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:I can't imagine a Trump admin 'encouraging' social media to supress say, information about gender transition would get such a glib reaction. How would one gain standing for such a case?

Well, COVID killed around 400,000 Americans in 2021. Gender transition killed ... I don't know ... one?

You can grumble about whether the government should work with Facebook, but I hardly think it should be illegal for the government to request moderation.

Sending emails falls short of bringing the power of the State to bear on the press.

simple schoolboy wrote:

B wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:I can't imagine a Trump admin 'encouraging' social media to supress say, information about gender transition would get such a glib reaction. How would one gain standing for such a case?

Well, COVID killed around 400,000 Americans in 2021. Gender transition killed ... I don't know ... one?

You can grumble about whether the government should work with Facebook, but I hardly think it should be illegal for the government to request moderation.

Sending emails falls short of bringing the power of the State to bear on the press.

Refusing to comply with emails from the nice men at the government absolutely risks scrutiny for future mergers and acquisitions. Everything the government does is backed by the implicit threat of force.

McParadigm wrote:happy friday