31 ms·

Would you kindly clarify your point? A supreme court justice is not a state or local official (as I understand the terms), so the ruling won't protect him.

by stiiv 2y ago

meepmorp 2y ago
It's a shame you're being downvoted because you make a fine point - Thomas' ethics aren't really at issue w.r.t. the ruling here, since it applies to local officials and not people in the federal government.
- lmeyerov 2y ago
  It makes his grifting look and be less bad. It matters legally, as precedent is a big part of US law, and in PR, as he can claim it is not bribery because he has now defined it to not be.
  - rootusrootus 2y ago
    > he can claim it is not bribery because he has now defined it to not be I'd like to think that that is so blatant that it might finally come with consequences. I'd like to think that, but I don't.
- FireBeyond 2y ago
  Is a local official accepting a bribe inherently better than a federal official? If you were in the spotlight for your alleged corruption at the federal level, I would have a hard time considering you an objective judge of corruption at other levels of government.
  - patmcc 2y ago
    I don't think anyone is arguing in favour of bribes for either local or federal officers - just that this particular ruling is not related (directly/legally) to the actions of the Supreme Court justices themselves.
    - Hasu 2y ago
      > I don't think anyone is arguing in favour of bribes for either local or federal officers Not here, but six Supreme Court Justices have done exactly that.
- dudus 2y ago
  It's a matter of optics and reflects the growing concern and distrust of the supreme Court in the current political US climate. Justices are in the spotlight for improper and unreported gifts. Anyone that's been in a large Corp knows a bit of bribing because of the yearly training you have to take. The fact they brushed it off as nothing to worry about and now start to make changes that loose regulations is very concerning. Even if these changes don't affect them directly.
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  The point is that by accepting gifts themselves they are biased as to whether officials should be allowed to do "after the fact".
pxc 2y ago
The point is that the justices own histories with respect to expensive gifts is naturally going to shape their senses of what kinds of gifts are normal, problematic, unusual, etc.— as are the general norms of their peers (professionally and/or socioeconomically). And our judges are quite accustomed to receiving extremely expensive gifts basically all the time.
- threeseed 2y ago
  In fact Thomas didn't believe that cruises, private jets, holidays etc constituted gifts. Which is why his disclosure of them was non-existent.
  - curiousgal 2y ago
    It's ironic, for a job whose only qualification is to be wise, he sure as fuck seems dumb.
    - kccoder 2y ago
      He's not dumb, he's corrupt.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    I just stayed at a family friend’s ranch for a week. Is that a “gift?”
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      Are you a Supreme Court Justice?
    - toast0 2y ago
      Depends on the details. My spouse was a local elected official in California, which has significant gift reporting requirements for those who hold local or state office (not federal office holders though). Staying at a friend's ranch, would likely fall under a limited gift exception [1], and would not usually be reportable: > 1. Home Hospitality. Gifts of hospitality including food, drink or occasional lodging that an official receives in an individual’s home when the individual or a member of their family is present. (Regulation 18942(a)(7).) Such hospitality provided by a lobbyist is a gift unless the home hospitality is related to another purpose unconnected with the lobbyist’s professional activities. Generally, this means functions like children’s birthday parties, soccer team parties, neighborhood barbeques, etc., where other guests attend who are not part of the lobbying process. (Regulation 18942.2.) or if the friend were not present, it may fall under this one... > 6. Long-Time Friend. Benefits received from a long-time personal friend where the gift is unrelated to the official’s duties. The exception does not apply if the individual providing the benefit to the official is involved in some manner with business before the official. (Regulation 18942(a)(18)(C).) This exception does not apply if the person providing the benefit to the official is an individual who otherwise has business before the official as set forth in Regulation 18942(a)(18)(D). Note that long-time friend is more restrictive than home hospitality while a family member is present. I would interpret this to mean that if your family friend has business related to your official position, you wouldn't need to report the stay if they were there, but if you stayed at their ranch while they weren't there, you would. Either way, if they had business with your position, I'd avoid the stay --- but my spouse was in a very limited scope office, so other than neighbors, nobody we knew had any reason to be involved in official business. [1] https://www.fppc.ca.gov/content/dam/fppc/NS-Documents/TAD/gift-fact-sheet/Local_Gift_Fact_Sheet_Final_2023.pdf https://www.fppc.ca.gov/content/dam/fppc/NS-Documents/TAD/gi...
voxic11 2y ago
You are not wrong. This ruling mostly just harmonizes the law as it applies to federal and non federal officials. > The high court has long held that criminal laws restricting “illegal gratuities” to federal officials require proof that the gifts were given for a specific “official act,” not just because of the official’s position.

Would you kindly clarify your point? A supreme court justice is not a state or local official (as I understand the terms), so the ruling won't protect him.

by stiiv 2y ago

Would you kindly clarify your point? A supreme court justice is not a state or local official (as I understand the terms), so the ruling won't protect him.

meepmorp 2y ago

It's a shame you're being downvoted because you make a fine point - Thomas' ethics aren't really at issue w.r.t. the ruling here, since it applies to local officials and not people in the federal government.

lmeyerov 2y ago
It makes his grifting look and be less bad. It matters legally, as precedent is a big part of US law, and in PR, as he can claim it is not bribery because he has now defined it to not be.
- rootusrootus 2y ago
  > he can claim it is not bribery because he has now defined it to not be I'd like to think that that is so blatant that it might finally come with consequences. I'd like to think that, but I don't.
FireBeyond 2y ago
Is a local official accepting a bribe inherently better than a federal official? If you were in the spotlight for your alleged corruption at the federal level, I would have a hard time considering you an objective judge of corruption at other levels of government.
- patmcc 2y ago
  I don't think anyone is arguing in favour of bribes for either local or federal officers - just that this particular ruling is not related (directly/legally) to the actions of the Supreme Court justices themselves.
  - Hasu 2y ago
    > I don't think anyone is arguing in favour of bribes for either local or federal officers Not here, but six Supreme Court Justices have done exactly that.
dudus 2y ago
It's a matter of optics and reflects the growing concern and distrust of the supreme Court in the current political US climate. Justices are in the spotlight for improper and unreported gifts. Anyone that's been in a large Corp knows a bit of bribing because of the yearly training you have to take. The fact they brushed it off as nothing to worry about and now start to make changes that loose regulations is very concerning. Even if these changes don't affect them directly.
insane_dreamer 2y ago
The point is that by accepting gifts themselves they are biased as to whether officials should be allowed to do "after the fact".

pxc 2y ago

The point is that the justices own histories with respect to expensive gifts is naturally going to shape their senses of what kinds of gifts are normal, problematic, unusual, etc.— as are the general norms of their peers (professionally and/or socioeconomically). And our judges are quite accustomed to receiving extremely expensive gifts basically all the time.

threeseed 2y ago
In fact Thomas didn't believe that cruises, private jets, holidays etc constituted gifts. Which is why his disclosure of them was non-existent.
- curiousgal 2y ago
  It's ironic, for a job whose only qualification is to be wise, he sure as fuck seems dumb.
  - kccoder 2y ago
    He's not dumb, he's corrupt.
- rayiner 2y ago
  I just stayed at a family friend’s ranch for a week. Is that a “gift?”
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    Are you a Supreme Court Justice?
  - toast0 2y ago
    Depends on the details. My spouse was a local elected official in California, which has significant gift reporting requirements for those who hold local or state office (not federal office holders though). Staying at a friend's ranch, would likely fall under a limited gift exception [1], and would not usually be reportable: > 1. Home Hospitality. Gifts of hospitality including food, drink or occasional lodging that an official receives in an individual’s home when the individual or a member of their family is present. (Regulation 18942(a)(7).) Such hospitality provided by a lobbyist is a gift unless the home hospitality is related to another purpose unconnected with the lobbyist’s professional activities. Generally, this means functions like children’s birthday parties, soccer team parties, neighborhood barbeques, etc., where other guests attend who are not part of the lobbying process. (Regulation 18942.2.) or if the friend were not present, it may fall under this one... > 6. Long-Time Friend. Benefits received from a long-time personal friend where the gift is unrelated to the official’s duties. The exception does not apply if the individual providing the benefit to the official is involved in some manner with business before the official. (Regulation 18942(a)(18)(C).) This exception does not apply if the person providing the benefit to the official is an individual who otherwise has business before the official as set forth in Regulation 18942(a)(18)(D). Note that long-time friend is more restrictive than home hospitality while a family member is present. I would interpret this to mean that if your family friend has business related to your official position, you wouldn't need to report the stay if they were there, but if you stayed at their ranch while they weren't there, you would. Either way, if they had business with your position, I'd avoid the stay --- but my spouse was in a very limited scope office, so other than neighbors, nobody we knew had any reason to be involved in official business. [1] https://www.fppc.ca.gov/content/dam/fppc/NS-Documents/TAD/gift-fact-sheet/Local_Gift_Fact_Sheet_Final_2023.pdf https://www.fppc.ca.gov/content/dam/fppc/NS-Documents/TAD/gi...

voxic11 2y ago

You are not wrong. This ruling mostly just harmonizes the law as it applies to federal and non federal officials. > The high court has long held that criminal laws restricting “illegal gratuities” to federal officials require proof that the gifts were given for a specific “official act,” not just because of the official’s position.