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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
pxc|1 year ago
threeseed|1 year ago
Which is why his disclosure of them was non-existent.
voxic11|1 year ago
> 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.
meepmorp|1 year ago
FireBeyond|1 year ago
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.
dudus|1 year ago
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|1 year ago
lmeyerov|1 year ago