华尔街日报的总结（楼上想给高法洗白的可以歇歇了） The Supreme Court overturned the bribery conviction of an Indiana mayor who took $13,000 from a local truck dealership after it won a city contract, ruling Wednesday that a federal anticorruption law applies only to payments for future official conduct, not gratuities for past acts.
Tapeface 发表于 2024-07-02 00:41 华尔街日报的总结（楼上想给高法洗白的可以歇歇了） The Supreme Court overturned the bribery conviction of an Indiana mayor who took $13,000 from a local truck dealership after it won a city contract, ruling Wednesday that a federal anticorruption law applies only to payments for future official conduct, not gratuities for past acts.
你知道gratuities是什么？ 办事之前收钱叫bribery，办事之后收钱叫gratuity。最高法院的判决是，这个案子是办事以后收钱，不属于bribery，如果你要charge，请用正确的legal term。 并没有说，gratuity legal。而是要求检察官，运用法律必须严谨。如果不严谨，就会被高院驳回。 你明显这是要黑最高法院，因为你都没读懂华尔街日报的解释。 gratuities for past acts. 也就是因为past action收钱，是gratuities.
Tapeface 发表于 2024-07-02 00:41 华尔街日报的总结（楼上想给高法洗白的可以歇歇了） The Supreme Court overturned the bribery conviction of an Indiana mayor who took $13,000 from a local truck dealership after it won a city contract, ruling Wednesday that a federal anticorruption law applies only to payments for future official conduct, not gratuities for past acts.
既然你不信 fake news, 就只能好好读读原版的，看看高法是怎么处心积虑咬文嚼字强词夺理：Federal and state law distinguish between two kinds of payments to public officials—bribes and gratuities. Bribes are typically paymentsmade or agreed to before an official act in order to influence the publicofficial with respect to that future official act. Gratuities are typically payments made to a public official after an official act as a reward or token of appreciation. While American law generally treats bribes as inherently corrupt and unlawful, the law’s treatment of gratuities is more nuanced. Some gratuities might be innocuous, and others mayraise ethical and appearance concerns. Federal, state, and local governments have drawn different lines on which gratuities and gifts are acceptable and which are not. For example, Congress has established comprehensive prohibitions on both bribes and gratuities to federal officials. If a federal official accepts a bribe for an official act, federal bribery law provides for a 15year maximum prison sentence. See 18 U. S. C. §201(b). By contrast,if a federal official accepts a prohibited gratuity, federal gratuities lawsets a 2-year maximum prison sentence. See §201(c).In 1984, Congress passed and President Reagan signed a law now codified at 18 U. S. C. §666 that, as relevant here, extended the gratuities prohibition in §201(c) to most state and local officials. Congress reversed course after two years and amended §666 to avoidthe law’s “possible application to acceptable commercial and businesspractices.” H. R. Rep. No. 99–797, p. 30 (1986). As amended, the text of §666 now closely resembles the bribery provision for federal officials,§201(b), and makes it a crime for most state and local officials to “corruptly” solicit, accept, or agree to accept “anything of value” “intending to be influenced or rewarded in connection with” any official business or transaction worth $5,000 or more. §§666(a)(1)(B), (b). 2 SNYDER v. UNITED STATES Syllabus That crime carries a 10-year maximum prison sentence. §666(a). This case involves James Snyder, who is the former mayor ofPortage, Indiana. In 2013, while Snyder was mayor, Portage awarded two contracts to a local truck company, Great Lakes Peterbilt, andultimately purchased five trash trucks from the company for about $1.1 million. In 2014, Peterbilt cut a $13,000 check to Snyder. The FBI and federal prosecutors suspected that the payment was agratuity for the City’s trash truck contracts. But Snyder said that the payment was for his consulting services as a contractor for Peterbilt. A federal jury ultimately convicted Snyder of accepting an illegalgratuity in violation of §666(a)(1)(B). The District Court sentenced Snyder to 1 year and 9 months in prison. On appeal, Snyder argued that §666 criminalizes only bribes, not gratuities. The Seventh Circuit affirmed Snyder’s conviction. Held: Section 666 proscribes bribes to state and local officials but doesnot make it a crime for those officials to accept gratuities for their past acts. Pp. 7–16. (a) Six reasons, taken together, lead the Court to conclude that §666 is a bribery statute and not a gratuities statute—text, statutory history, statutory structure, statutory punishments, federalism, and fair notice. Pp. 7–14. (1) The statutory text strongly suggests that §666—like §201(b)—is a bribery statute, not a gratuities statute. The dividing line between §201(b)’s bribery provision and §201(c)’s gratuities provision is that bribery requires an official to have a corrupt state of mind and to accept (or agree to accept) a payment intending to be influenced in anofficial act. Section 666 shares the defining characteristics of §201(b)’s bribery provision. By contrast, §666 bears little resemblance to§201(c), which contains no express mens rea requirement. Pp. 7–8. (2) The statutory history reinforces that result. When enacted, §666 borrowed language from §201(c), the gratuities statute for federal officials. Two years later, Congress amended §666 to model it insteadon §201(b), the bribery statute. It would be strange to interpret §666,as the Government suggests, to mean the same thing now that it did before the amendment. Pp. 8–9. (3) Statutory structure reinforces that §666 is a bribery statute,not a two-for-one bribery-and-gratuities statute as the Government posits. The Government identifies no other provision in the U. S. Codethat prohibits bribes and gratuities in the same provision. And §201 does not do so. That is because bribery and gratuities are “two separate crimes” with “two different sets of elements.” United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of Cal., 526 U. S. 398, 404. P. 9. (4) For federal officials, Congress has separated bribery and gratuities into two distinct provisions of §201 for good reason: The Cite as: 603 U. S. ____ (2024) 3 Syllabus crimes receive different punishments that “reflect their relative seriousness.” Sun-Diamond, 526 U. S., at 405. For example, accepting a bribe as a federal official is punishable by up to 15 years in prison, while accepting an illegal gratuity as a federal official is punishable by up to only 2 years. If the Government were correct that §666 also covered gratuities, Congress would have inexplicably authorizedpunishing gratuities to state and local officials five times more severely than gratuities to federal officials—10 years for state and local officialscompared to 2 years for federal officials. The Government cannot explain why Congress would have created such substantial sentencingdisparities. Pp. 9–10. (5) Interpreting §666 as a gratuities statute would significantly infringe on bedrock federalism principles. Generally, States have the “prerogative to regulate the permissible scope of interactions between state officials and their constituents.” McDonnell v. United States, 579 U. S. 550, 576. The differing approaches by the state and local governments reflect policy judgments about when gifts expressingappreciation to public officials for their past acts cross the line from the innocuous to the problematic. Those carefully calibrated policydecisions would be gutted if the Court were to accept the Government’sinterpretation of §666. Reading §666 to create a federal prohibition on gratuities would suddenly subject 19 million state and local officials toa new and different regulatory regime for gratuities. The Court should hesitate before concluding that Congress prohibited gratuities that state and local governments have allowed. After all, Congress does notlightly override state and local governments on such core matters of state and local governance. Pp. 10–11. (6) The Government’s interpretation of the statute would createtraps for unwary state and local officials. Sun-Diamond, 526 U. S., at 411. The Government says that the statute would not cover “innocuous” or “obviously benign” gratuities, but the Government does not identify any remotely clear lines separating such a gratuity from acriminal gratuity. The Government simply opines that state and local officials may not accept wrongful gratuities. The Government’s so-called guidance would leave state and local officials entirely at sea to guess about what gifts they are allowed to accept under federal law, with the threat of up to 10 years in federal prison if they happen to guess wrong. That is not how federal criminal law works. And the Court has rejected the view that it should construe a criminal statute on the assumption that the Government will use it responsibly. See McDonnell, 579 U. S., at 576. Pp. 11–14. (b) Faced with the phalanx of difficulties with its interpretation of §666, the Government’s argument boils down to one main point—that §666 uses the term “rewarded” as well as “influenced.” The 4 SNYDER v. UNITED STATES Syllabus Government says that Congress would not have added the term “rewarded” to “influenced” in §666 if the statute were meant to cover only bribes and not also gratuities. That argument is misconceived. Contrary to the premise of the Government’s argument, bribery statutes sometimes use the term “reward.” See, e.g., 18 U. S. C. §600; 33 U. S. C. §447. Moreover, without the term “rewarded” in §666, anofficial might try to defend against a bribery charge by saying that the payment was received only after the official act and therefore could not have “influenced” the act. By including the term “rewarded,” Congressmade clear that the timing of the agreement is the key, not the timingof payment. Although a gratuity or reward offered and accepted by a state or local official after the official act may be unethical or illegalunder other federal, state, or local laws, the gratuity does not violate§666. Pp. 14–16. 71 F. 4th 555, reversed and remanded.
Tapeface 发表于 2024-07-02 03:02 既然你不信 fake news, 就只能好好读读原版的，看看高法是怎么处心积虑咬文嚼字强词夺理：Federal and state law distinguish between two kinds of payments to public officials—bribes and gratuities. Bribes are typically paymentsmade or agreed to before an official act in order to influence the publicofficial with respect to that future official act. Gratuities are typically payments made to a public official after an official act as a reward or token of appreciation. While American law generally treats bribes as inherently corrupt and unlawful, the law’s treatment of gratuities is more nuanced. Some gratuities might be innocuous, and others mayraise ethical and appearance concerns. Federal, state, and local governments have drawn different lines on which gratuities and gifts are acceptable and which are not. For example, Congress has established comprehensive prohibitions on both bribes and gratuities to federal officials. If a federal official accepts a bribe for an official act, federal bribery law provides for a 15year maximum prison sentence. See 18 U. S. C. §201(b). By contrast,if a federal official accepts a prohibited gratuity, federal gratuities lawsets a 2-year maximum prison sentence. See §201(c).In 1984, Congress passed and President Reagan signed a law now codified at 18 U. S. C. §666 that, as relevant here, extended the gratuities prohibition in §201(c) to most state and local officials. Congress reversed course after two years and amended §666 to avoidthe law’s “possible application to acceptable commercial and businesspractices.” H. R. Rep. No. 99–797, p. 30 (1986). As amended, the text of §666 now closely resembles the bribery provision for federal officials,§201(b), and makes it a crime for most state and local officials to “corruptly” solicit, accept, or agree to accept “anything of value” “intending to be influenced or rewarded in connection with” any official business or transaction worth $5,000 or more. §§666(a)(1)(B), (b). 2 SNYDER v. UNITED STATES Syllabus That crime carries a 10-year maximum prison sentence. §666(a). This case involves James Snyder, who is the former mayor ofPortage, Indiana. In 2013, while Snyder was mayor, Portage awarded two contracts to a local truck company, Great Lakes Peterbilt, andultimately purchased five trash trucks from the company for about $1.1 million. In 2014, Peterbilt cut a $13,000 check to Snyder. The FBI and federal prosecutors suspected that the payment was agratuity for the City’s trash truck contracts. But Snyder said that the payment was for his consulting services as a contractor for Peterbilt. A federal jury ultimately convicted Snyder of accepting an illegalgratuity in violation of §666(a)(1)(B). The District Court sentenced Snyder to 1 year and 9 months in prison. On appeal, Snyder argued that §666 criminalizes only bribes, not gratuities. The Seventh Circuit affirmed Snyder’s conviction. Held: Section 666 proscribes bribes to state and local officials but doesnot make it a crime for those officials to accept gratuities for their past acts. Pp. 7–16. (a) Six reasons, taken together, lead the Court to conclude that §666 is a bribery statute and not a gratuities statute—text, statutory history, statutory structure, statutory punishments, federalism, and fair notice. Pp. 7–14. (1) The statutory text strongly suggests that §666—like §201(b)—is a bribery statute, not a gratuities statute. The dividing line between §201(b)’s bribery provision and §201(c)’s gratuities provision is that bribery requires an official to have a corrupt state of mind and to accept (or agree to accept) a payment intending to be influenced in anofficial act. Section 666 shares the defining characteristics of §201(b)’s bribery provision. By contrast, §666 bears little resemblance to§201(c), which contains no express mens rea requirement. Pp. 7–8. (2) The statutory history reinforces that result. When enacted, §666 borrowed language from §201(c), the gratuities statute for federal officials. Two years later, Congress amended §666 to model it insteadon §201(b), the bribery statute. It would be strange to interpret §666,as the Government suggests, to mean the same thing now that it did before the amendment. Pp. 8–9. (3) Statutory structure reinforces that §666 is a bribery statute,not a two-for-one bribery-and-gratuities statute as the Government posits. The Government identifies no other provision in the U. S. Codethat prohibits bribes and gratuities in the same provision. And §201 does not do so. That is because bribery and gratuities are “two separate crimes” with “two different sets of elements.” United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of Cal., 526 U. S. 398, 404. P. 9. (4) For federal officials, Congress has separated bribery and gratuities into two distinct provisions of §201 for good reason: The Cite as: 603 U. S. ____ (2024) 3 Syllabus crimes receive different punishments that “reflect their relative seriousness.” Sun-Diamond, 526 U. S., at 405. For example, accepting a bribe as a federal official is punishable by up to 15 years in prison, while accepting an illegal gratuity as a federal official is punishable by up to only 2 years. If the Government were correct that §666 also covered gratuities, Congress would have inexplicably authorizedpunishing gratuities to state and local officials five times more severely than gratuities to federal officials—10 years for state and local officialscompared to 2 years for federal officials. The Government cannot explain why Congress would have created such substantial sentencingdisparities. Pp. 9–10. (5) Interpreting §666 as a gratuities statute would significantly infringe on bedrock federalism principles. Generally, States have the “prerogative to regulate the permissible scope of interactions between state officials and their constituents.” McDonnell v. United States, 579 U. S. 550, 576. The differing approaches by the state and local governments reflect policy judgments about when gifts expressingappreciation to public officials for their past acts cross the line from the innocuous to the problematic. Those carefully calibrated policydecisions would be gutted if the Court were to accept the Government’sinterpretation of §666. Reading §666 to create a federal prohibition on gratuities would suddenly subject 19 million state and local officials toa new and different regulatory regime for gratuities. The Court should hesitate before concluding that Congress prohibited gratuities that state and local governments have allowed. After all, Congress does notlightly override state and local governments on such core matters of state and local governance. Pp. 10–11. (6) The Government’s interpretation of the statute would createtraps for unwary state and local officials. Sun-Diamond, 526 U. S., at 411. The Government says that the statute would not cover “innocuous” or “obviously benign” gratuities, but the Government does not identify any remotely clear lines separating such a gratuity from acriminal gratuity. The Government simply opines that state and local officials may not accept wrongful gratuities. The Government’s so-called guidance would leave state and local officials entirely at sea to guess about what gifts they are allowed to accept under federal law, with the threat of up to 10 years in federal prison if they happen to guess wrong. That is not how federal criminal law works. And the Court has rejected the view that it should construe a criminal statute on the assumption that the Government will use it responsibly. See McDonnell, 579 U. S., at 576. Pp. 11–14. (b) Faced with the phalanx of difficulties with its interpretation of §666, the Government’s argument boils down to one main point—that §666 uses the term “rewarded” as well as “influenced.” The 4 SNYDER v. UNITED STATES Syllabus Government says that Congress would not have added the term “rewarded” to “influenced” in §666 if the statute were meant to cover only bribes and not also gratuities. That argument is misconceived. Contrary to the premise of the Government’s argument, bribery statutes sometimes use the term “reward.” See, e.g., 18 U. S. C. §600; 33 U. S. C. §447. Moreover, without the term “rewarded” in §666, anofficial might try to defend against a bribery charge by saying that the payment was received only after the official act and therefore could not have “influenced” the act. By including the term “rewarded,” Congressmade clear that the timing of the agreement is the key, not the timingof payment. Although a gratuity or reward offered and accepted by a state or local official after the official act may be unethical or illegalunder other federal, state, or local laws, the gratuity does not violate§666. Pp. 14–16. 71 F. 4th 555, reversed and remanded.
政府公职人员应该报备他收到的gratuity。这high amount financial gratuity from related party 更应该鼓励他们不要收。 business 这种法律严格多了，政府官员竟然没有具体立法，太恐怖了。 建议议会加强立法。 司法估计因为没有立法，也只能如此裁决
AaaaMei 发表于 2024-07-02 03:34 政府公职人员应该报备他收到的gratuity。这high amount financial gratuity from related party 更应该鼓励他们不要收。 business 这种法律严格多了，政府官员竟然没有具体立法，太恐怖了。 建议议会加强立法。 司法估计因为没有立法，也只能如此裁决
政府公职人员应该报备他收到的gratuity。这high amount financial gratuity from related party 更应该鼓励他们不要收。 business 这种法律严格多了，政府官员竟然没有具体立法，太恐怖了。 建议议会加强立法。 司法估计因为没有立法，也只能如此裁决 AaaaMei 发表于 2024-07-02 03:34
这个拿了亿万富翁给的私立学校的学费的侄子？ Clarence Thomas raised him 'as a son.' Now he's facing 25-plus years on weapons and drug charges. https://www.businessinsider.com/clarence-thomas-mark-martin-raised-nephew-son-jailed-2024-5?amp Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas says he raised his grandnephew, Mark Martin, "as a son" from the time Martin was 6.Revelations that billionaire Republican Harlan Crowe paid for Martin's education have fueled a scandal engulfing the Court.Martin now faces decades in prison and says Thomas has refused to speak with him for years.
AaaaMei 发表于 2024-07-02 03:34 政府公职人员应该报备他收到的gratuity。这high amount financial gratuity from related party 更应该鼓励他们不要收。 business 这种法律严格多了，政府官员竟然没有具体立法，太恐怖了。 建议议会加强立法。 司法估计因为没有立法，也只能如此裁决
Tapeface 发表于 2024-07-02 00:41 华尔街日报的总结（楼上想给高法洗白的可以歇歇了） The Supreme Court overturned the bribery conviction of an Indiana mayor who took $13,000 from a local truck dealership after it won a city contract, ruling Wednesday that a federal anticorruption law applies only to payments for future official conduct, not gratuities for past acts.
你转载的这段，恰恰证明了高院的ruling合理性：a federal anticorruption law applies only to payments for future official conduct, not gratuities for past acts
MayBest 发表于 2024-07-02 09:01 你转载的这段，恰恰证明了高院的ruling合理性：a federal anticorruption law applies only to payments for future official conduct, not gratuities for past acts
MayBest 发表于 2024-07-02 09:01 你转载的这段，恰恰证明了高院的ruling合理性：a federal anticorruption law applies only to payments for future official conduct, not gratuities for past acts
两回事。liberal conservative 都有bias. Roberts 的观点、判决基本上都不是我想要的，但还是要给他相当credit: 他私下维护政教分离原则, 本人也没参与政治活动。Thomas是真有问题，大问题，totally impeachable: 质疑行政机构行为，take case with conflict of interest ，收钱办案...
这一篮子礼物的价值超过规定的限额就不行。 加州明文规定公职人员2024收受礼物限额是590以下。 这个被告当时自己弄的公司亏钱，又快过圣诞了， 他在没有事先打招呼的情况下， 直接去这两家卡车公司， 说I need money. That's what I am here for. 之前这两家公司都从市政府拿到利润可观的合同。 然后这两家公司给了1万3. 如果这种行为被高法肯定，认为这是给的小费，那么确实， 从此美国政清人和， 一举消灭了古今中外都无法解决的行贿受贿罪。
GABA 发表于 2024-07-02 13:19 这一篮子礼物的价值超过规定的限额就不行。 加州明文规定公职人员2024收受礼物限额是590以下。 这个被告当时自己弄的公司亏钱，又快过圣诞了， 他在没有事先打招呼的情况下， 直接去这两家卡车公司， 说I need money. That's what I am here for. 之前这两家公司都从市政府拿到利润可观的合同。 然后这两家公司给了1万3. 如果这种行为被高法肯定，认为这是给的小费，那么确实， 从此美国政清人和， 一举消灭了古今中外都无法解决的行贿受贿罪。
GABA 发表于 2024-07-02 13:19 这一篮子礼物的价值超过规定的限额就不行。 加州明文规定公职人员2024收受礼物限额是590以下。 这个被告当时自己弄的公司亏钱，又快过圣诞了， 他在没有事先打招呼的情况下， 直接去这两家卡车公司， 说I need money. That's what I am here for. 之前这两家公司都从市政府拿到利润可观的合同。 然后这两家公司给了1万3. 如果这种行为被高法肯定，认为这是给的小费，那么确实， 从此美国政清人和， 一举消灭了古今中外都无法解决的行贿受贿罪。
大法官们啥时下课啊？ Just In: 16% of Americans think the SCOTUS is doing a good job (Trump's Base) 40% said they had no confidence at all. 66% on immunity have little or no confidence 63% have no confidence on election or abortion stance 70% have No Confidence in ruling for America and instead think they vote for their personal ideologies
Common sense 无论是事后还是事前收受钱财 都是贿赂的一种表现形式 并不会因最高法的诠释而改变
一生所爱 发表于 2024-07-02 00:58
if common sense works, what do we need the whole legal system? If common sense works, OJ won''t have walked free. legal technicality had over turned many cases before and will over turn many cases in the future.
whoescaped2024 发表于 2024-07-02 18:54 if common sense works, what do we need the whole legal system? If common sense works, OJ won''t have walked free. legal technicality had over turned many cases before and will over turn many cases in the future.
为从官员处获取利润丰厚的合同或其他政府福利，一些人选择动用行贿手段，而美国联邦反腐败法中的条款规定，州和地方官员从行贿者那里收受价值超过5000美元的礼物即是犯罪行为。而如今，美国联邦最高法院已经推翻了这一条款，缩小了反腐败法的适用范围。
综合路透社、《洛杉矶时报》当地时间6月27日报道，美国最高法院的大法官们当天以6票对3票的裁决结果，推翻了下级法院对前印第安纳州波蒂奇市市长詹姆斯·斯奈德（James Snyder）的腐败定罪，他在任职期间从一家卡车公司收受了1.3万美元，而该公司获得了超过100万美元的合同。
目前，美国最高法院的保守派大法官占据多数，而自由派大法官则对当天裁决持反对意见，包括索尼娅·索托马约尔（Sonia Sotomayor）、埃琳娜·卡根（Elena Kagan）和克坦吉·布朗·杰克逊（Ketanji Brown Jackson）。路透社认为，这一裁决可能会使联邦检察官更加难以对州和地方官员提起腐败诉讼。
据报道，2013年，斯奈德担任市长期间，波蒂奇市与当地卡车公司Great Lakes Peterbilt签订了两份合同，购买五辆垃圾车，总价值约110万美元。次年，当斯奈德还在任职时，该卡车公司向其支付了1.3万美元。斯奈德称，这是他为该公司工作所得的咨询费。
此前，美国联邦检察官指控斯奈德腐败地索取与政府合同有关的款项，这一罪行最高可判处10年监禁。陪审团判定他有罪后，法官判处他一年零九个月监禁。
斯奈德对此辩称，所谓“联邦犯罪”涉及的是“贿赂”，并不包括“酬金”，而后位于芝加哥的联邦第七巡回上诉法院驳回了他的这一论点，斯奈德随即向美国最高法院提起上诉。
在保守派大法官布雷特·卡瓦诺（Brett Kavanaugh）此次撰写的裁决书中，美国最高法院区分了“贿赂”和“酬金”的定义，前者需要提供非法交易的证据，后者可以是礼物或对过去援助的回报。大法官们表示，这些官员可能会因贿赂而受到指控和起诉，但如果没有证据表明存在非法交易，则不会因收受过去的好处而受到指控。
“本案的问题是，（联邦法律）是否也将州和地方官员接受礼金——例如礼品卡、午餐、牌匾、书籍、相框照片或类似的东西，作为公务行为后表示感谢的象征，定为犯罪。答案是否定的。”卡瓦诺代表大多数大法官写道，印第安纳州西北部的波蒂奇市，显然允许当地公职人员获得外部酬劳。
《洛杉矶时报》指出，尽管卡瓦诺的裁决书中提到了午餐和相框照片等象征性礼物，但联邦法律只适用于超过5000美元案值。美国最高法院的多数保守派大法官则认为，有关法律是“贿赂法，而不是酬金法”。卡瓦诺称，联邦法律“已让州和地方政府来管理给州和地方官员的酬金”，“并没有补充那些州和地方法规，让1900万名州和地方官员因接受哪怕是普通酬金的行为，而面临长达10年的联邦监禁”。
而在自由派大法官杰克逊撰写的反对意见书中，美国最高法院少数的自由派大法官对该裁决可能会破坏打击公共腐败的努力感到担忧。
杰克逊表示，利用公职谋取私利的官员威胁着我们最重要机构的诚信，而这名前市长对法令作出的荒谬和无端解读，只有当今的法庭才会相信。她指出，成文法律“对普通的送礼行为没有构成真正威胁”，“但显然涵盖了（市长）在将市政合同交给经销商后索取的腐败付款（尽管可能不是交换条件）”。“在今天之后，联邦政府起诉这种明显错误行为的能力令人怀疑。”
除了联邦政府在未来起诉腐败行为的能力受到质疑之外，路透社也认为，这项裁决可能还会限制联邦检察官追查腐败案件的能力。去年，美国最高法院还推翻了对于纽约州民主党籍前州长安德鲁·科莫（Andrew Cuomo）一名前助手的受贿罪裁决。
《洛杉矶时报》更是提到，最近一段时间，美国最高法院的大法官们也因接受富有赞助者未公开的礼物而受到严厉批评。保守派大法官克拉伦斯·托马斯（Clarence Thomas）经常享受由得克萨斯州亿万富翁哈兰·克劳（Harlan Crow）提供的豪华旅行项目；而在更早前的2008年，另一名保守派大法官塞缪尔·阿利托（Samuel Alito）也陷入丑闻，他曾乘坐对冲基金亿万富翁保罗·辛格（Paul Singer）的私人飞机前往阿拉斯加钓鱼。
🔥 最新回帖
其实大法官解释宪法这一点并不是宪法给的，而是通过一个判例赋予的，换言之如果那个判例被推翻，这个也就没了。当然不会有哪个大法官如此高风亮节去主动推翻那个判例。百年前搞出这个判例的大法官历史知名，以一己之力提升了大法官的权力范围。
曲解不是正常解释，这是法律条文的漏洞。这样的解释让老百姓不满，这就是一个完善的机会 民主从来就不是一个完美的图像，民主是一个渐进的过程，这个过程甚至会有倒退，现在就是一个倒退的过程。 我崇尚崇尚民主，不是因为它的完美，而是因为她的生命力
选举总统，总统任命大法官，这是一个间接的关系
大法官不是选举产生的
"如果连这个都没搞清楚，脏话连篇并不能增加你的说服力" - 虽然从逻辑上来说，否命题不一定成立，（也就是说，不能因为你这话推断出你认为“如果搞清楚了这个，脏话连篇就可以增加你的说服力”）。但当二者没有直接联系的时候（是不是搞清楚了这个，和“脏话连篇”能不能增加说服力，这二者有关系么？），用这种因果关系的说法来描述，其实是不太成立的。
“最近几个违反宪法/曲解宪法的判决，如果美国人民不以选票来表示不满，民主在这个国家也就岌岌可危了” 这个国家的民主，就是指的现在这个制度本身，而不是（某些人）认为的，这个制度背后代表的东西。也不是当年创建这个制度的人心里想像的东西 - 没人保证造出来的东西就必须100%反应造的人的理想。
另外呢，在这个制度下，法官就是有权利解释宪法，宪法从来没有规定法官不能“曲解”宪法，现在发生的一切，都是在这个制度的范畴下发生的。同样，美国人民不以选票来表示不满，就说明他们不打算表示不满（是真的没有不满，还是有不满但不屑于表示，这个无所谓）。另外，他们满还是不满，现在这个制度仍然是民主制度，制度没有任何地方被破坏 - 只是参与的人与这些人参与的方式，让你觉得（我说不定也觉得）不正确，不高兴，不爽而已。但这仍然没有打破这个制度的范畴。
不要觉得这个制度（民主）就等同于你心里那个高大上的理想。。。
🛋️ 沙发板凳
从此以后，美国就是世界最廉洁的国家。
法官是说这个案子判据依据的联邦法绿不适用。在这个案子里这个采购并没什么问题。而且他举了一个例子，如果一个家长 给自己孩子的老师一篮子礼物，是不是也要面临10年监狱time？
嗯呢，名副其实的白莲花了 lol
我们穷发考题都规定不能收学生礼物。一次我同事收到一个学生送的小花篮，被小秘提醒，然后就送到chancellor's office去报备了。
这个市长收一万多和老师收一篮子礼物真的可以相提并论吗？
AOC 在搞，不过就是作秀，当然还是要给她credit的
加如你收了学生一万快的花篮作为学生对你的感谢。大法官说你不会被判坐5-10年牢。大法官的判决有40多页。我也没仔细看。大意是，该受什么样的处罚，应该有地方，或行业管理，就像你说的学校的规则。而不应该用联邦法案。
你知道gratuities是什么？
办事之前收钱叫bribery，办事之后收钱叫gratuity。最高法院的判决是，这个案子是办事以后收钱，不属于bribery，如果你要charge，请用正确的legal term。
并没有说，gratuity legal。而是要求检察官，运用法律必须严谨。如果不严谨，就会被高院驳回。
你明显这是要黑最高法院，因为你都没读懂华尔街日报的解释。 gratuities for past acts. 也就是因为past action收钱，是gratuities.
啊？这年头事成收费都有一个好听的名字了啊？不是我不明白，这世界变化快，盗亦有道，杀手失手了也不好意思收钱啊，所以事成后收钱这种黑道也懂的规矩就这样洗白了？这奇葩的高院，还真是从法律上保证了腐败的权力，果然是最高院，高，实在是高；黑，真是够黑！
Common sense 无论是事后还是事前收受钱财 都是贿赂的一种表现形式 并不会因最高法的诠释而改变
也不应该考虑贿赂的时程，提前付款也好，延宕一年也好。
高院这个判决，让司法实践很难抓贿赂，因为只要行贿人推迟支付，你只要抓不到他们之间沟通的交流细节、而只是抓到了大额的金钱支付的话，这个罪定不了。可想而知，会有多少贪腐因此大行其道。
国之将亡，必有妖孽啊。我猜想会出现一种贿金教父，作为贿赂双方之间的掮客，掮客代表行贿人向受贿人承诺，你在事办成一年或者五年内，一定可以收到贿金。受贿人拿到这个保证，就先把事办成。如果行贿人将来不履行承诺，掮客将向受贿人代为支付利益，并用暴力惩戒行贿人。妥妥的黑帮。
WSJ 在政治报道上有BIAS。上周五总统辩论后连 “Biden Dementia" 都不让说。结果评论区只好说“Biden And Dementia”。 记者一贯通过选择行报道，告诉你一半事实来糊弄老百姓。WSJ自己的editorial office都经常指出WSJ的news division 误导。
这个案例里法官给了个例子，学生给老师送个礼，难道也要FBI把老师抓到牢里？
你说的不错。这个案子里应该没有对价交换利益。也就是说这个市长不是因为“受贿”才选择这家供应商。我看的很粗。也可能哪里漏掉了。
这地洗得角度清奇。这么说吧，如果学生送礼是为了拿到自己不应得的荣誉或者成绩，是受贿。
这个例子不是我说的。是法官的原文里的。法官没有说“拿到自己不应得的荣誉或者成绩”。
对呀，反正lobbying 已经是 legalized bribery 了，还差这几毛钱😂
都是体面人，兄弟连之间交换情谊，怎么能搞得跟买卖似的，当场兑付？肯定是你日常帮兄弟一把，年底或者下台之后算总账啊。
米国SCOTUS真的是深谙黑道交往规矩，不错！大有希望。
法律定义上，brirey 和 gratuity有不同定义。两个都是犯罪。用中文定义都是受贿，但是美国法律把先收钱后办事称为brirery，先办事后收钱（或者权力交易）称为gratuity。
就好比，一个句子里有一个名词。检察官说，这是主语。最高院说，对不起，这是宾语，所以你说它是主语不成立。最高院并没有说，这个名词不存在于句子中。
不是。起诉的罪名不符合法律定义。比如一个强奸犯，你起诉他杀人。问题就没杀人，怎么判有罪？起诉强奸罪就能判了。是这么个意思。
如果学生是因为考试不过给老师送礼贿赂数额显著，是的，该抓。
这个不是中国之前已经澄清的吗？拿钱没办事也是受贿。
既然你不信 fake news, 就只能好好读读原版的，看看高法是怎么处心积虑咬文嚼字强词夺理：Federal and state law distinguish between two kinds of payments to public officials—bribes and gratuities. Bribes are typically paymentsmade or agreed to before an official act in order to influence the publicofficial with respect to that future official act. Gratuities are typically payments made to a public official after an official act as a reward or token of appreciation. While American law generally treats bribes as inherently corrupt and unlawful, the law’s treatment of gratuities is more nuanced. Some gratuities might be innocuous, and others mayraise ethical and appearance concerns. Federal, state, and local governments have drawn different lines on which gratuities and gifts are acceptable and which are not. For example, Congress has established comprehensive prohibitions on both bribes and gratuities to federal officials. If a federal official accepts a bribe for an official act, federal bribery law provides for a 15year maximum prison sentence. See 18 U. S. C. §201(b). By contrast,if a federal official accepts a prohibited gratuity, federal gratuities lawsets a 2-year maximum prison sentence. See §201(c).In 1984, Congress passed and President Reagan signed a law now codified at 18 U. S. C. §666 that, as relevant here, extended the gratuities prohibition in §201(c) to most state and local officials. Congress reversed course after two years and amended §666 to avoidthe law’s “possible application to acceptable commercial and businesspractices.” H. R. Rep. No. 99–797, p. 30 (1986). As amended, the text of §666 now closely resembles the bribery provision for federal officials,§201(b), and makes it a crime for most state and local officials to “corruptly” solicit, accept, or agree to accept “anything of value” “intending to be influenced or rewarded in connection with” any official business or transaction worth $5,000 or more. §§666(a)(1)(B), (b). 2 SNYDER v. UNITED STATES Syllabus That crime carries a 10-year maximum prison sentence. §666(a). This case involves James Snyder, who is the former mayor ofPortage, Indiana. In 2013, while Snyder was mayor, Portage awarded two contracts to a local truck company, Great Lakes Peterbilt, andultimately purchased five trash trucks from the company for about $1.1 million. In 2014, Peterbilt cut a $13,000 check to Snyder. The FBI and federal prosecutors suspected that the payment was agratuity for the City’s trash truck contracts. But Snyder said that the payment was for his consulting services as a contractor for Peterbilt. A federal jury ultimately convicted Snyder of accepting an illegalgratuity in violation of §666(a)(1)(B). The District Court sentenced Snyder to 1 year and 9 months in prison. On appeal, Snyder argued that §666 criminalizes only bribes, not gratuities. The Seventh Circuit affirmed Snyder’s conviction. Held: Section 666 proscribes bribes to state and local officials but doesnot make it a crime for those officials to accept gratuities for their past acts. Pp. 7–16. (a) Six reasons, taken together, lead the Court to conclude that §666 is a bribery statute and not a gratuities statute—text, statutory history, statutory structure, statutory punishments, federalism, and fair notice. Pp. 7–14. (1) The statutory text strongly suggests that §666—like §201(b)—is a bribery statute, not a gratuities statute. The dividing line between §201(b)’s bribery provision and §201(c)’s gratuities provision is that bribery requires an official to have a corrupt state of mind and to accept (or agree to accept) a payment intending to be influenced in anofficial act. Section 666 shares the defining characteristics of §201(b)’s bribery provision. By contrast, §666 bears little resemblance to§201(c), which contains no express mens rea requirement. Pp. 7–8. (2) The statutory history reinforces that result. When enacted, §666 borrowed language from §201(c), the gratuities statute for federal officials. Two years later, Congress amended §666 to model it insteadon §201(b), the bribery statute. It would be strange to interpret §666,as the Government suggests, to mean the same thing now that it did before the amendment. Pp. 8–9. (3) Statutory structure reinforces that §666 is a bribery statute,not a two-for-one bribery-and-gratuities statute as the Government posits. The Government identifies no other provision in the U. S. Codethat prohibits bribes and gratuities in the same provision. And §201 does not do so. That is because bribery and gratuities are “two separate crimes” with “two different sets of elements.” United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of Cal., 526 U. S. 398, 404. P. 9. (4) For federal officials, Congress has separated bribery and gratuities into two distinct provisions of §201 for good reason: The Cite as: 603 U. S. ____ (2024) 3 Syllabus crimes receive different punishments that “reflect their relative seriousness.” Sun-Diamond, 526 U. S., at 405. For example, accepting a bribe as a federal official is punishable by up to 15 years in prison, while accepting an illegal gratuity as a federal official is punishable by up to only 2 years. If the Government were correct that §666 also covered gratuities, Congress would have inexplicably authorizedpunishing gratuities to state and local officials five times more severely than gratuities to federal officials—10 years for state and local officialscompared to 2 years for federal officials. The Government cannot explain why Congress would have created such substantial sentencingdisparities. Pp. 9–10. (5) Interpreting §666 as a gratuities statute would significantly infringe on bedrock federalism principles. Generally, States have the “prerogative to regulate the permissible scope of interactions between state officials and their constituents.” McDonnell v. United States, 579 U. S. 550, 576. The differing approaches by the state and local governments reflect policy judgments about when gifts expressingappreciation to public officials for their past acts cross the line from the innocuous to the problematic. Those carefully calibrated policydecisions would be gutted if the Court were to accept the Government’sinterpretation of §666. Reading §666 to create a federal prohibition on gratuities would suddenly subject 19 million state and local officials toa new and different regulatory regime for gratuities. The Court should hesitate before concluding that Congress prohibited gratuities that state and local governments have allowed. After all, Congress does notlightly override state and local governments on such core matters of state and local governance. Pp. 10–11. (6) The Government’s interpretation of the statute would createtraps for unwary state and local officials. Sun-Diamond, 526 U. S., at 411. The Government says that the statute would not cover “innocuous” or “obviously benign” gratuities, but the Government does not identify any remotely clear lines separating such a gratuity from acriminal gratuity. The Government simply opines that state and local officials may not accept wrongful gratuities. The Government’s so-called guidance would leave state and local officials entirely at sea to guess about what gifts they are allowed to accept under federal law, with the threat of up to 10 years in federal prison if they happen to guess wrong. That is not how federal criminal law works. And the Court has rejected the view that it should construe a criminal statute on the assumption that the Government will use it responsibly. See McDonnell, 579 U. S., at 576. Pp. 11–14. (b) Faced with the phalanx of difficulties with its interpretation of §666, the Government’s argument boils down to one main point—that §666 uses the term “rewarded” as well as “influenced.” The 4 SNYDER v. UNITED STATES Syllabus Government says that Congress would not have added the term “rewarded” to “influenced” in §666 if the statute were meant to cover only bribes and not also gratuities. That argument is misconceived. Contrary to the premise of the Government’s argument, bribery statutes sometimes use the term “reward.” See, e.g., 18 U. S. C. §600; 33 U. S. C. §447. Moreover, without the term “rewarded” in §666, anofficial might try to defend against a bribery charge by saying that the payment was received only after the official act and therefore could not have “influenced” the act. By including the term “rewarded,” Congressmade clear that the timing of the agreement is the key, not the timingof payment. Although a gratuity or reward offered and accepted by a state or local official after the official act may be unethical or illegalunder other federal, state, or local laws, the gratuity does not violate§666. Pp. 14–16. 71 F. 4th 555, reversed and remanded.
原文44页，https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-108_8n5a.pdf 正反方意见都有。里面也有我提到的例子。我没时间也没水平全读完。要说“强词夺理”， 你觉得6个最高法院的大法官，还都是名校毕业的大律师，都是贪财的腐败分子同类，要“处心积虑” 为一万快的贪污犯开脱？
司法估计因为没有立法，也只能如此裁决
议会不会立法去限制自己收贿。就象议会每次都会通过给自已涨工资的议案一样。
这洗的，不愧是Donnie的好信徒
啥叫没立场，这些大法官自己就多年受贿，然后为了方便自己将来更多的受贿，判了这狗p结果
以后打官司，看谁能出大价钱买通法官，谁赢（高院说的）
是时候出现支付宝for gratitude了。
我觉得这个属于毫无必要的咬文嚼字。大概类似于说联邦法规定抢东西犯联邦法，而偷东西不归联邦管。然后你去杂货店拿枪示意收银的转身，然后拿了1000快。然后你狡辩说拿钱的时候没人看见，是偷不是抢。法官觉得你说的有道理。
我还真的就觉得六个大法官都已经为felon处心积虑翻案了，这算个啥，更何况，有几个大法官自己拿gratitude这么多年了，他们的屁股坐在哪里，可想而知了
当年建立这个制度的时候想的很好，大法官终身制，所以衣食无忧，不会为五斗米折腰。谁能想到，不用为五斗米折腰的大法官们，可以为豪华游，私人飞机的座位，和侄子的大学学费折腰。
这个拿了亿万富翁给的私立学校的学费的侄子？ Clarence Thomas raised him 'as a son.' Now he's facing 25-plus years on weapons and drug charges. https://www.businessinsider.com/clarence-thomas-mark-martin-raised-nephew-son-jailed-2024-5?amp Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas says he raised his grandnephew, Mark Martin, "as a son" from the time Martin was 6. Revelations that billionaire Republican Harlan Crowe paid for Martin's education have fueled a scandal engulfing the Court. Martin now faces decades in prison and says Thomas has refused to speak with him for years.
最高法院现在感觉就是你骂他们偷书，他给你引用四书五经些写8万个字自告诉你读书人窃书不能算偷。
如果把一个好的机会给了学生，事后送一束花不用抓，送一万块现金，当然要抓。
怎么知道他们不会事后收钱呢?一年多的监狱加上政治生涯完结,值得花大钱了
政府工作人员要报备的，而且严格得多。
你转载的这段，恰恰证明了高院的ruling合理性：a federal anticorruption law applies only to payments for future official conduct, not gratuities for past acts
哪合理了？？！！！贿赂在办事后再收钱就成了纯洁的感谢，荒谬又无耻。
几个大法官是low得不能再low的人渣
那就正好顺便暴露一下这个联邦法律的大漏洞
不要误导。最高法院有好几个类似的判决。都推翻了bribery conviction。 McDonnell （Virginia 州长）还有 Cuomo 助理 受贿。这两个案子是unanimous decision。和党派无关。
这当然不是咬文嚼字。如果觉得分开定义不合理，就让congress重新定义。把俩东西合并为一个东西。法律就是有法依法。不依法，想charge什么就什么。这叫什么法律？
法律严谨一点，对大众只有好处，没有坏处。如果检察部门想怎么charge怎么charge，法官都不监督，这是法律社会吗？
问题是，检察官不能依法charge，是谁的问题？谁的resoponsiblity？业务不熟练，解决方法是加强业务，而不是骂指出问题的法官。
合法受贿本来就是西方宣扬的他们那一套民主社会的基石啊。说真的，这其实也不错，所谓民主本来就是幌子而已。
说到为felon处心积虑，那肯定是纽约的DA，San Francisco的DA啊？no bail不就是纽约搞出来的？
大法官做好自己的责任，根据法律定义判断，有什么问题？混乱不堪的检察部门才是问题的根本。
你可以放心，主党会盯着这些法官的。不仅会盯着大法官，还会盯着大法官的所有亲人。你看，大法官挂个旗子都要大做文章。敢收钱，敢交换利益，还不被媒体爆料一个月？
盯着有用吗，最近爆出的那些受贿收礼的事儿，有后果吗？
现在的美国，只要脸皮厚，上面又有大法官罩着，没有后果，这一定就是你们要的LAW&ORDER，啊不，TREEA&SHRUB吧？
不能因为没有你要的结果，就说有问题吧。
我个人并不支持高院的所有判决。比如针对政府可以限制言论自由的一个判决我就不支持。但是不代表因为结果不符合自己的想法，就去黑大法官。
目前为止，大法官没有犯法。媒体针对几个conservative大法官的新闻，让你觉得好像大法官犯法了。其实没有。而Thomas Clarence被针对，也完全印证了我的说法。
至于大法官的政治倾向，几个conservative，几个liberal都有自己的政治倾向。而且依照结果，大法官最后做出的结论也不一定完全party line。
只能说法官一脑子大便，这么洗那世界上就没有受贿行贿罪了。 现在最高层从总统到大法官到议会都缺少commen sense。
继续洗，反正你家总是有理
jeso 的帖子里没有一句提党派啊 你回的什么牛头不对马嘴
自从最高法宣布堕胎违法可以各州自主后 就倒车越开越猛烈了
爆料一个月有啥用？ Thomas和他老婆收gratitude 全世界都知道了 有用吗？
两回事。liberal conservative 都有bias. Roberts 的观点、判决基本上都不是我想要的，但还是要给他相当credit: 他私下维护政教分离原则, 本人也没参与政治活动。Thomas是真有问题，大问题，totally impeachable: 质疑行政机构行为，take case with conflict of interest ，收钱办案...
全是按着党意在投票，国会也是，高院也是
民主之耻啊，人民票选出来的议员代议士，结果投票时只有党意没有民意，越混越回去了
最高法院是释法的，判断法律程有瑕疵很难理解吗？ 以前辛普森就是靠这种程序瑕疵导致证物不被法庭采用才脱罪的。
那我再补充一下。Virginia 州长腐败案。2016年。法官一致推翻了判决（8:0）。包括自由派法官金斯堡， Sotomayor, Kagan, 和kennedy. Cumo (NY 州长）助理的案子是2023 年被一致推翻 (9:0)。类似的案子估计还有。
这就是为什么现在政治光谱两极化了。以前还有尼克松横扫49州，现在不管谁赢总统最多3百出头选举人票。拜登再痴呆也至少两百票，川普再罪行滔天也至少两百票，大家都只选党不选人。
这个制度又不禁止这样。不同的人，在制度下换个其他方法玩儿，不是挺正常的？
这个制度又没办法强迫大家都努力建设一个正义高尚美好的美利坚嘛。。。大家有自个儿的个人爱好，别人能有啥办法？
拜托。三权分立这时不讲了？impartial judicial system 这时不提了？ 还“只是挂了个旗子”。 Obama 只是穿了个Tan suit 就被GOP 骂了一个任期。
洗地洗得有点儿专业精神好吧。
这一篮子礼物的价值超过规定的限额就不行。 加州明文规定公职人员2024收受礼物限额是590以下。 这个被告当时自己弄的公司亏钱，又快过圣诞了， 他在没有事先打招呼的情况下， 直接去这两家卡车公司， 说I need money. That's what I am here for. 之前这两家公司都从市政府拿到利润可观的合同。 然后这两家公司给了1万3. 如果这种行为被高法肯定，认为这是给的小费，那么确实， 从此美国政清人和， 一举消灭了古今中外都无法解决的行贿受贿罪。
这不就是窃钩者诛 窃国者侯吗？ 按版上高华的说法，美国根本没有贪官。贪官都是中国制度的产物。美国制度民主，公平公正着呢！是哦，美国官员都是金钱赞助出来的，哪有贪字一说。制度先进到现在的官员连遮羞布都懒的盖了。
这个制度的现实就是，大家都可以骂（当然，也可以不骂）。但如果你没有办法从符合制度的程序上证明对方如何如何了，而且，还需要有能力从符合制度的程序上做到把对方如何如何 - 那么就只是大家骂着玩儿而已。
这个，就是言论自由（可以骂），法治（按程序做事），和民主（“人民”还是有机会 - 概率多大我们不管 - 通过选举出自己的代言人来改变程序的）。
这制度伟大光荣正确吧？
觉得我在讽刺的话 - 其实我真的不是在讽刺这个制度 - 这个制度还是说的过去的，特别是如果要横向比较的话。我只是觉得，这制度就好像国家一样，大家使劲利用就好了，犯不着觉得这制度多高大上，时不时拿这制度自我宣传的那些东西来崇拜或者咋的。。。
以前是川普看着大国的绝对权力流口水，很快要轮到习大大流口水了，又可以做婊子又可以挂着民主的贞节牌坊，简直是太美好了！
是的，制度一直就这样，需要天时地利人和来做stress test. 川普、GOP、保守派高院联手，才让我们恍然大悟：原来可以这样玩的，原来总统办公室可以公然犯罪啊。
黄右和黑右，两个最可笑的群体，呦呦~~~~
最高法就是典型的就怕流氓有文化 学历都是顶尖学校的law school，做出来的事那和杀人放火没区别，只不过用的是文化人的合法犯罪的方式
法官的意见是这个没有犯666（federal的） 这个法。因为666 是说bribe，这个是gratitude。法官也说了公职人员收礼会触发各行业或地方的法律，并不是说行贿受贿是合法的。
为什么说发考题穷？
有一次学期末交上作业之后，我就到导师办公室把准备好的五十块钱礼卡送给她，因为我觉得老太太待我太好了，有一次还亲自开车送我回家。我当时真是单纯地表示感谢。 但是老太太说系里有规定不能收礼物。我说这是对您表达谢意的一种方式，这次就收下吧，我也不会提的。 只见老太太把手放在胸前说了一个字：conscience。 第一次送礼就这样被拒。心里像洗了个淋雨。这件事的细节我一直记忆犹新。后来去她家，就带了一盆兰花，她很高兴，每次见面都会告诉我兰花的长势如何。有时回国也会给她带一盒茶叶，她也会高兴地收下，每次都会给我写封感谢信，并回礼。
16% of Americans think the SCOTUS is doing a good job (Trump's Base)
40% said they had no confidence at all.
66% on immunity have little or no confidence
63% have no confidence on election or abortion stance
70% have No Confidence in ruling for America and instead think they vote for their personal ideologies
if common sense works, what do we need the whole legal system? If common sense works, OJ won''t have walked free. legal technicality had over turned many cases before and will over turn many cases in the future.
感谢trump认命的大法官们啊
连说客都合法化，你以为美国人脑筋会转不过来，说客就是行贿的，行贿合法，受贿自然也合法，行贿受贿合法化就是美国法律，美国人民必须遵守
法律是为大众服务的，当大众对法律不清楚的时候，法官负责解释。而当大众对某一件事情可以用common sense来判断，如果法官一定要作出违反common sense的解释，那虽然他不犯法，他的信用却已经破产了。 上次温哥华难民奸杀中国女童案，杀人犯的律师非要从女童有可能故意勾引难民这个角度来辩论。这是一个典型违反common sense但是符合法律程序的操作。结果就是律师虽然不犯法，但是他的道德信用在大众心里已经破产了。