We should try making bribery illegal again. That would be fun.
this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2023
474 points (98.4% liked)
politics
19143 readers
2772 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
A low level government employee would loss their job if someone takes them out to a nice dinner.
We don't need to make it illegal, it already is.
We need to start enforcing the rules across the board.
If I accept "gifts" above a very small amount it's a big deal. With inflation it got to the point we could barely have meals or celebrations with vendors when major projects were completed. Private sector is rife with this behavior though, corporate boxes at sporting venues etc. and the schmoozing.
Illegal for the people doing and taking the bribe, with real teeth.
The thing is- at least with SCOTUS justices- we can make absolutely anything illegal regarding them and they can just turn around and say, "fuck you, what are you going to do about it?" And the rest of the government says, "uh... nothing I guess?"
Genuinely how is this not considered illegal in the US?
If you tried this in most parts of Europe you'd be charged for committing bribery
The Supreme Court of the United States has decided that corporations are people and money is free speech.
We have become what Benjamin Franklin feared we would become. He could see the future:
“In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government, but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered; and believe further, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government.”
The founders feared political factions forming above all and basically designed the government around not allowing factions to take absolute power, like separating the presidential office from the executive branch etc. and not even making the position clear. Presidents have basically pushed on the limits and defined the office over the years and political factions formed around economic interests of the people because of course they would. At first you basically needed a minimum amount of worked land to even vote in most states, men's suffrage happened long before women's. America was basically designed as a free real estate project and sort of still is.
Pretty sure the founders kind of assumed we'd have a couple of revolutions by now
when the people shall have become so corrupted as to need a despotic government.
See that’s interesting. Franklin’s talking about society getting fucked up and naturally spawning a bad government above itself as a necessary part of its own structure.
It’s not just that people get corrupt and form a despotic government, it’s that the world getting fucked up means despots are more likely to be liked and desired by people seeking safety from the corruption around them.
It's illegal.
Enforceable is the issue here because the people being bribed are the same ones that would ultimately decide any criminal appeals and they, themselves, have no accountability or oversight.
.
And guess what Trump and his MAGA army proudly lack?
Or cultivate healthy emotions, and build the thing back into integrity again.
Saying that our system collapses when a sense of honor collapses isn’t the worst criticism. I’m not sure that a system that could survive most people being awful would be worth living in.
So the courts are illegitimate. Got it.
What do we do about it
I’ll tell you what we do. We turn all of Sunnyvale into an all-inclusive resort and casino, we charge at the door, and we all the liquor and free dope you want. Then we get those judge cocksuckers to come out and party with us so they think we’re cool, and we can pass any laws we want.
It’ll fuckin work, I know it will boys. We just gotta come together and make er happen, like in the old days.
It’s not rocket appliances.
Nothing. As usual.
It's simple: stop going to court, paying taxes or supporting them in any way. Band together with like-minded people under new collectively agreed upon laws you actually will follow. Train yourselves to fight for when the thugs of the old system inevitably do come at your door. Buy land and set up intentional communities, and start putting money toward buying land in the former counties to regain control. Bribe officials in the old counties to facilitate this.
That's the bare minimum of what we should be doing right now, honestly. The bare, bare minimum.
Really we should be banding together and overthrowing those old governments.
you're kinda underestimating the power of organized, state sanctioned violence.
You're underestimating the ability for people to organize and fight off tyrannical governments. It's literally how the U.S. became a country at all.
Have more faith in yourself and stop being a coward.
Yea just stop paying taxes guys… duh
And have been since at least Dred Scott.
It has always been this way.
The framers COMPLETELY dropped the ball on checks on the judicial.
We need a new constitution. This one was designed for information at the speed of horse, a population less than 2% the size of today's, and sets too high a bar to change the status quo. It might have been the most flexible governmental framework of its time, but that was a quarter millennium ago, before the first mass produced revolver was a twinkle in colt's eye btw.
I think most of the framers would be shocked and not necessarily pleased that we haven't by now. Then again, some of them would be upset that women and minorities can vote, so maybe their opinion wouldn't mean much.
It was basically designed around nobody having enough power to do anything that would affect landowners, or doing much in general. I think the founders would be shocked at the political factions they feared so much and considered the country a failed project. They didn't see a reason for anyone to vote that didn't hold arable land etc. Kicked the can on slavery as far down the road as they could to avoid the inevitable confrontation. Handed power back to the planters during reconstruction. Beat down any opportunity for collective public action.
To be fair they dropped the ball completely on the whole of the judiciary. They said "Okay there's a Supreme Court, and it'll have at least a Chief Justice... Congress can decide how many others there are, but they serve for life. And Congress can determine how it works otherwise. There should probably be some lower courts and stuff but Congress can figure that out later."
We’re tired, we’ve been here for god knows how long, and I haven’t been laid since I left the farm. Let’s wrap this up and let the first congress handle it. Besides, I’m wasted by this point.
and I haven’t been laid since I left the farm.
If the rest of them were anything like Franklin (and I guarantee there were more like Franklin than Adams), they probably had gotten laid a lot more since leaving the farm.
I used to imagine, "What would a new constitution look like if we actually invoked the clause to hold another constitutional convention?"
But imagine if we voted to hold one now, when billionaires hold so much power already. I all but guarantee that they'd make sure they had control over a majority of the delegates, and we'd end up with something that was somehow even worse than what we have today.
The framers COMPLETELY dropped the ball on checks on the judicial.
First and second amendments were intended to be that check. Communicating and causing damage are the two capabilities a populace needs to be respectable enough to have to play nice with.
And all this talk of revolution … that’s the check. The government was built with an off switch, in the form of specific protections for the things that could destroy it.
They knew that no structure would be incorruptible. You can have layers but eventually the layers stop. It’s a who watches the watchers that watch the watchers … and so forth scenario.
They knew that there’s no way to arrange those pieces so that it won’t go bad eventually. Sp they made a rule that the people must keep the power to destroy that structure.
Like summoning a dragon to protect you, but first making sure there are dragon-proof boxes with lances inside, because dragons are dangerous as fuck. You only summon one if there’s something even worse coming at you. But just because it’s your best option doesn’t mean it isn’t dangerous as fuck and may need to be put down.
Yeah Scalia died while on one of these trips.
good to know even the rich sometimes get bad coke
“One country for sale, slightly used, quiet neighborhood, fixer upper. Act quick before the disillusioned citizens wake up from the propaganda fever dream we have lulled them into!”
Anyone else remember the “activist judges” bullshit. It’s always, always, always projection with these fuckers.
Ding ding ding. If it comes out of their mouth it is because they did it already or are planning to do it. It is like that employee at work who accuses someone of stealing so no one will notice that they are the thief.
You don't say....
I feel like this system is past the point where it can be saved at this point.
Did the conservative judges rule that money equal speech and corporations are people? So the richer you are, the more speech you have and the "poors" are free to use all the money they have-- oh the poors have no money? Then they have no speech.
Bad ruling for democracy. Shame!
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
"b-b-but destroying democracy isn't illegal! stop oppressing me!"