5 ms·
This feels shamefully on the nose. Could be worth reading the opinions. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-108_8n5a.pdf https://www.supremecourt.go
by SJMG 2y ago
This feels shamefully on the nose. Could be worth reading the opinions.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-108_8n5a.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-108_8n5a.pdf
- bishbosh 2y ago[flagged]
- Amorymeltzer 2y agoFor the Dissent by Justice Jackson, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan
- kristjansson 2y agoBecause, as should be unsurprising, both the controversy and decision are more nuanced and more limited than the headline you're reading.
- bishbosh 2y ago[flagged]
- AnimalMuppet 2y agoIf you ignore all the nuance, then no, there's no nuance worth seeing.
- bishbosh 2y agoPlease explain the nuance I am missing.
- AnimalMuppet 2y agokristjansson explained it better than I would: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40802482 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40802482
- bishbosh 2y ago>Supreme Court finds that (a) bribes and gratuities are a different crimes under federal law This is literally my entire point. This is not a nuanced conversation because the supreme court invented a distinction. Read Code § 666, it's intent is utterly clear.
- kristjansson 2y agoYou asked why the opinion is worth reading: because it lays out an argument for why a distinction exists, and has been recognized and differentiated by comparable laws, and isn't by §666. You can disagree with the reasoning, but there is reasoning there. You can disagree with the outcome (and you should!) but that's an issue for your legislators (federal, state and local), not the judiciary. If we've learned anything from Roe, it's that federal precedent is an absolutely unsound basis for policy implementations. Decisions like this (and there are going to be more of them) are argument and impetus for more and better __law__ at state, local, and federal levels.