Benjamin: Again, you're just making up what the opinion does. If by "regurgitating the reasoning" in the opinion, you mean I took the time to understand what it says instead of making something up, I and most others would see that as making a stronger, better argument.

The right wing majority on scotus legalizes bribery and criminalizes homelessness because to them, rich people deserve rights and poor people deserve nothing. If they were deserving they’d be rich.

Wait. Which decision was the bribery one? I can’t keep up

He's talking about yesterday's opinion in Snyder v. U.S., and he's lying about it.

I’m describing the supreme court’s jurisprudence on public corruption laws accurately, and the screenshot of this absurd opinion supports my point not yours.

To be clear, you're saying an opinion that recognizes gratuities and briberies are punishable under separate statutes "legalizes bribery"? It's fine to disagree with the reasoning but your description is not an honest one.

I am saying an opinion that effectively legalizes bribery as long as payment is deferred is part of the long pattern of scotus undermining public integrity prosecutions for bribery yes. You regurgitating the reasoning in obfuscating legal jargon really doesn’t change anything

Again, you're just making up what the opinion does. If by "regurgitating the reasoning" in the opinion, you mean I took the time to understand what it says instead of making something up, I and most others would see that as making a stronger, better argument.

I’m not obligated to pretend the practical effect of a ruling isn’t what it is just because you would prefer I do that, it is pretty standard for the justices to nullify laws they don’t like using what seem like small technical objections that in practice make the law impossible to enforce.

If a court said the govt couldn’t charge someone for manslaughter under a statue that criminalized first-degree murder, by your logic, that would mean the court legalized manslaughter (& didn’t like laws prohibiting manslaughter). That’s utter crap.

No, my logic is if the court rewrites a statute in which congress outlawed bribery because they didn’t feel like it should cover a particular type of bribery, that is a form of legalizing bribery

Again, you seem to be ignoring the fact that the conduct you claim to be legalized after this opinion is, in fact, a crime under other statutes

To use your example, it would be more like saying "You can't charge someone with murder unless the victim dies instantaneously. If the victim survives for even one second, that's not a crime." It's now legal to murder someone. All you have to do is let them bleed out, or drown, or poison them.

Post