The Supreme Court rules that state officials can engage in a little corruption, as a treat
The Supreme Court rules that state officials can engage in a little corruption, as a treat
Snyder v. US is the Republican justices’ latest decision weakening anti-corruption laws.
seems like a good thread to plug https://represent.us
they describe themselves as
RepresentUs is America’s leading nonpartisan anti-corruption organization fighting to fix our broken and ineffective government. We unite people across the political spectrum to pass laws that hold corrupt politicians accountable, defeat special interests, and force the government to meet the needs of the American people.
here's their policy platform https://represent.us/policy-platform/
they claim to have played a part in over 185 pieces of legislation (mostly at the state level) that contributed to their core platform https://represent.us/our-wins/
here are their ongoing campaigns presented state by state https://represent.us/2024-campaigns/
nobody and no organization are perfect but I feel like most people can find something to agree on here
I agree with the few things I read on there, but, they seem to be taking the stance of "The system is fair, and a vote will do this if the people vote for us!"
Here's the problem. A few years ago here in Ohio, it was determined that the maps had to be redrawn because they were already gerrymandered to hell. The people voted on this. It was legally required by vote.
What instead happened, was the republicans who control the state, gave them 5 different maps, mostly identical, and none of which addressed the spirit of what the vote had called for. To this day, an approved map has not been submitted, despite being well past the due date. Many, myself included, believe that until some force MAKES them submit a fair map, they will continue to play games, and waste everybodies time. All in an effort to affect future voting.
What needs to happen instead, is an independant commitee needs to step in. Not the republicans. Not the democrats. But a mix of both. And here's the kicker. IF they can't come up with an agreement by the time voting season starts? Then Ohio shouldn't get to vote. It's either get your shit together, on a platform you can both agree on, or both of you lose out. That's it. End of story.
And what happens if all 50 states do this? Welp. Guess we hand the keys to the country back over to England. Hey England. Sorry about that whole 248 year rebellion. We're rejoining you now!
'That statute prohibits state officials from “corruptly” accepting “anything of value from any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded” for an official act.'
This is quite literally the 'textualists' ignoring the text of the law. Creatively redefining what 'rewarded' means. Jackson's dissent is basically 'Did you read the text?', 'Do you think Congress knows what words mean?', and 'Do you own a dictionary?'
It takes a lot of education to make a ruling this stupid. It should be impeachable.
republican judges are probably okay with the bribe/ gratuity as long as they checks 10 commandments "do not bear false witness" about it.
🤡 marvelous
A gratuity is just a postdated bribe, and everybody including the Supreme Court knows it.
Look, only a chump pays in advance. The TV news tells me all the time about contractors, but it's pretty obvious anyway: once they've got your money, why do they need to finish the job?
Chief Justice Roberts yelling at Justice Thomas, "Thomas ya really fucked our reputation with all your blatant corruption."
"Ah fuck em, I think people are only jealous. They can't be corrupt and get away with it like I can.", Thomas quips
"You greasy old scumbag! You just gave me the best way we can get the other branches off our ass!" Roberts exclaims.
Legalized bribes? HUH?!?
Just in case people don't know... Yes, that's the actual headline. Pretty sure Vox is actively trying to get our attention.
So then us citizens can do so also and pay cash for all services so the government gets no taxes.
But only sometimes, when we want to treat ourselves.
How much general legitimacy does the regime have there? Do people not want to overthrow/replace it by this point?
Man, you can't even get people to do anything about actual concentration camps. Like, some people tried to organize raids on the places where humans were being held because they dared to cross a border, in horrible conditions, including children. Nobody did a gods damned thing. A lot of fucking noise about how "somebody" should do something, but they couldn't.
Yet another black man was murdered by police a few years ago, and people did rise up a little, but didn't have the will or stamina to do the job all the way to the finish.
Truth? The people that think they're all progressive and good are fucking complacent. They really think that they can fix the system from the inside without any sacrifice.
Fuck, you can't even get far left radicals to actually do something concrete.
Meanwhile, the far right has ridden on the coat tails of racism and hate until they've been taken over completely by the racists and fascists, but they're united enough via identity politics that they'll never, ever let go of what they've gained without an actual, real fight.
It's not like the protests just went nowhere and petered out. That was the effect, but the state showed that it has a violent and psychotic response to any serious criticism, and was unashamed of it.
Just for clairity......what does finishing the job all the way entail? What would that process be? I assume you're talking about George Floyd? From what I saw there were national protests. A few cities, including his own, got violent at times. I even heard of certain Canadian cities protesting. Which in my mind made little sense, but I appriciate the gesture.
But what more, short of killing every cop, are you suggesting be done?
Things will have to get a lot worse before people rise up, but it'll happen eventually.
The Supreme Court even today has over twice the approval rating as Congress (that's not saying much). Overthrowing one branch of government seems like a novel idea. There is a process for removing justices but it's never been done before. Only one justice has been impeached, Samuel Chase, and he wasn't even removed from the bench.
I want to overthrow everything. Just.....just all of it. The corrupt leaders. The corrupt police. The capitolistic system which encourages exploitation. The conditions which lead to poverty. The systemic racism. Just.......just delete, start new file.
What should we call this new country? I'm thinking "Whoopsiedaisy" has a nice ring to it.
Is removing a justice more or less difficult than adding more justices?
If I had less to lose, dude. (I'm already on a list, I'm not worried)