The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
Nobody Expects the [SCOTUS] 5-4 Decision! (Read the OP)
Posts
We wouldn't have this:
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Additionally. You own .1% of that company or your fine is 400 dollars. And your investment is probably much higher than that (if 40m is 10% of valuation then you've got $4000 in shares) so 400 doesn't seem so high now.
So I'm Sitting on some christmas Amazon bucks still and debating picking up a book on SCOTUS that I kept hearing about thanks to the author writing a bunch of stuff for Slate and the like over the past several months, Ian Millhiser's "Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted."
Anyone here know if its worth checking into for a look at the Court's history? Outside of those articles, I'm not too familiar with Millhiser [though they all seem to follow that common theme of the Court's potential to fuck over the already fucked over, if memory serves], so I've been hesitant to spend on it
If that's what you want, fire ahead. I haven't read it myself but I'd be shocked if it didn't turn out to be exactly what it says on the tin.
tl;dr:
I can't speak to that book, but Jeffrey Toobin's books about the Supreme Court are quite good!
just in general though, a book with that title seems likely to be pretty repetitive. The author obviously has a point to make and there are plenty of ready data points in the court's history that support it; you may not find a collected recitation necessary.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
So maybe you should schedule a nice relaxing spa day in say four to six months?
Cause they're totally gonna let him off.
Isnt it just fraud, then? Obtaining money through false pretences? Something?
I'd imagine that the issue is that the law is written around the quid pro quo - that is, a core element of the offense is that a service was provided in exchange for compensation. If said service was never administered, then it's possible that the law may not cover this circumstance.
Yup, it's absolutely fucked up.
Considering what happened with Conrad Black? Yeah, I wouldn't get your hopes up.
If Congress didn't cover this situation when writing the law and the jury instructions were in error, that's the kind of thing someone should get off for. Regardless of how corrupt he actually is.
So basically they are gonna continue down the path of defining corruption so narrowly that it only applies to when the money is in a sack and the sack has a $ sign on it and one of the two of you has a moustache?
It depends.
Their primary claim is statutory interpretation. They think the law only explicitly claims that quid pro quo is illegal, therefore his actions aren't illegal under that law. I haven't read the law so I don't know if that's the case, but that argument IS coherent. If this interpretation wins, Congress just needs to pass a law making it illegal.
If it falls to their secondary claim that the law is too "vague" and doesn't make it clear what's illegal, then we get to iffy territory. I suspect this is just the "throwing things at the wall to see if they stick" portion of their appeal.
Also the mustache has to be twirly.
Without having followed the original incident too closely, I don't know if I'm reading that right or not. And without seeing the statue in question it's not clear if it is in fact badly written - someone walking because the law was written poorly sucks, but the correct response is to suck it up and fix the law. Hopefully that's not the case here (or at least he can't convince enough justices of it).
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
I suppose I can look forward to another majority opinion that bends over backwards and dons the rosiest of rose colored glasses to hand wave the clear problems with allowing this kind of stuff to go on. The spirit of the law is pretty clear to me and elected officials need to be held to a higher standard. Even the whiff of pay to play taints the entire system.
It applies to other areas too - it's not enough that a judge can say he has no conflict of interest and so won't recuse himself. The mere appearance of conflict should be enough. I mean, basically the entirety of the government - if there's an appearance of corruption/conflict of interest, fix that shit, I don't give a damn about whether there's actually an issue, because the mere perception of an issue means ipso facto there's an issue.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
We don't want people going to prison based off the "spirit of the law".
That's not justice.
I'd probably support that law. However, you'd have to make sure it has complete overlapping coverage with laws making attempt to bribe an official illegal.
Otherwise someone could make legal offers of gifts to a judge and then publicize those offers to create an "appearance of conflict".
All that said, the Supreme Court doesn't make laws on what is or isn't corruption.
I don't think it is that coherent since I'm pretty sure "the appearance of corruption" is a standard in previous decisions.
"Yes your honour, I was pointing my gun at him, and yes, I was demanding all his money, but I had no intention to actually shoot him, so there's no quid to the pro quo!"
"Since I didn't actually shoot him, no crime was committed!"
well, that's assault at least
maybe we need some sort of assault-type offense for when you take bribes but don't clearly follow through on them
the supreme court does not deal in justice. they handle law. these concepts are not the same thing.
True. But in this specific case it seems pretty clear to me what was going on and that anyone in a similar situation would reasonably be expected to know that it wasn't above board. I think for the defense's argument to actually be valid you would have to factually show that the defendants had no intention from the start of helping their billionaire sugar daddy along. Failing to help him seems immaterial to the mere act of accepting the favors in the first place.
The law in question does say that threatening to use your official power counts as corruption. Your example is definitely a threat! Specifically brandishing a weapon.
Do you have a case where that was used for this specific law?
I'll have to read up on this more, but "appearance of corruption" sounds like it would be a good way to determine what can be outlawed constitutionally. But it shouldn't have any affect on what is actually banned, since that's what the text of the law is for.
Aww, look what you went and did. You've made me quote the dictionary at you!
Edit: Snark aside, the Supreme Court can't just declare something to be a crime if a law doesn't say it is.
I'm sure that threatening someone to coerce them into giving you money is still a crime, by the letter of the law. I'm just saying, my common sense finds the clear parallels confounding:
If person A thinks that person B will shoot them unless given money, and then gives B money, that's a crime even if person B has no intention to shoot.
If person A thinks that person B will not pass some law unless given money, and then gives B money, that's not a crime if person B has no intention to pass that law.
It makes no sense that sometimes person A's perspective is the determinant and sometimes it's not, within bounds of reasonableness. Though maybe this reflects a criticism of SCOTUS I've heard before, which is that they're all a bunch of civil law practitioners and none of them have any criminal law experience, other than Sotomayor.
There's probably a better simile out there, but I can't think of it right now.
Seriously? It's like the most famous part of the Citizens United decision:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
"independent expenditures do not lead to, or create the appearance of, quid pro quo corruption" from Kennedy as I remember.
Here's something on the issue in general I just found:
http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/news/blog/court-s-changing-conception-corruption
Sorry, miscommunication here. I can see why "specific law" was confusing. I would have been clearer if I had referred explicitly to the Honest Services Fraud Ban and the Hobbs Act.
Unless Wikipedia is incomplete, those didn't come up in Citizens United.
I have to disagree there. Article III states:
I read this as all federal judiciary power is derived from SCOTUS. The other federal courts exercise power delegated to them by act of Congress, but their existence does not diminish the authority of SCOTUS. Since justice is the purview of the courts, justice must therefore be within the scope of SCOTUS's powers and duties.
Of course, as a matter of practice I would agree - in general they consider matters of what the law is, and very rarely what the law should be... but to consider the latter is absolutely within the scope of a common law court (for civil matters; criminal matters must be a question of what the law is, because all else is legal by default) - if memory serves, tort law generally originates as case law that is eventually codified in statutes.
But the key point is - they do so by choice and tradition, not because they lack the authority. (I don't think it would be wise for them to start simply ruling on what they feel is just, except in the most egregious of circumstances... and at that point the constitution offers plenty of legal cover)
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
A law subject to broad interpretation. SCOTUS definitely makes law all by their lonesome. Otherwise explain why Medicaid isn't universal in all states despite the law explicitly saying so and the Constitution explicitly giving Congress the power of the purse.
Corporations are liable under the same circumstances that owners would be personally liable for an unincorporated business. They never increase liability in any way. They exist to shield the private assets of the owners who are otherwise liable. I can't tell you whether the case of the employee who poisons meat would end in liability for Chipotle (though if I had to I would bet not - businesses are not liable for every act their employees perform), but if it did, then it would end in liability for Chipotle's owners if Chipotle were not incorporated. All the assets that make up the business and their personal funds would be exposed. We can talk about the advantages or disadvantages of the corporate system, but I don't see how it can ever increase the funds recoverable in civil actions.
Not sure what this has to do with Citizens United, which as I understand it was decided on the basis of collective rights of individual members, not the rights of a fictitious person.
That's not an applicable example. They took an existing law and limited it's effect.
Some people in this thread are saying that the Court should ignore the text of the law and just declare certain things illegal and set a sentence for them. Which is absolutely not the role of the judiciary.