5 ms·

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 offi

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".

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".