Supremes Give Big Business Yet Another License to Screw the Public

[George Costanza]

Well, Bush's gang of Right-Wing jurists just keeps rolling along.

According to the link you posted, The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to "pare the law down to it's core" which meant that it can only be applied to bribery and kickbacks.

The 6 Justices that pared the law down included:

Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Sonia Sotomayor

Um, those justices were nominated by whom?

You, just like many in the Democrat Party, didn't do any reading. Perhaps that "shrinkage" is going on in your brain as well?

I said, I WAS IN THE POOL! Doesn't anybody listen to me?

Look - prior to the Supremes' paring down of this law, it had been used by prosecutors to go after greedy corporate execs for any number of reasons. I am not in favor of vague laws, but I am less in favor of corporate greed. So, like anyone else, when it suits my purpose, I am more than willing to set my principles aside.

After yesterday's decision, the ONLY types of corporate crimes that fall under this particular statute are bribes and kickbacks. Conflict of interest (and God knows what else) is/are now something that will no longer be addressed. That bothers me.

BTW - thanks for the positive rep points based on the OP. I appreciate your support.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Well, Bush's gang of Right-Wing jurists just keeps rolling along.

According to the link you posted, The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to "pare the law down to it's core" which meant that it can only be applied to bribery and kickbacks.

The 6 Justices that pared the law down included:

Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Sonia Sotomayor

Um, those justices were nominated by whom?

You, just like many in the Democrat Party, didn't do any reading. Perhaps that "shrinkage" is going on in your brain as well?

I said, I WAS IN THE POOL! Doesn't anybody listen to me?

Look - prior to the Supremes' paring down of this law, it had been used by prosecutors to go after greedy corporate execs for any number of reasons. I am not in favor of vague laws, but I am less in favor of corporate greed. So, like anyone else, when it suits my purpose, I am more than willing to set my principles aside.

After yesterday's decision, the ONLY types of corporate crimes that fall under this particular statute are bribes and kickbacks. Conflict of interest (and God knows what else) is/are now something that will no longer be addressed. That bothers me.

BTW - thanks for the positive rep points based on the OP. I appreciate your support.

So you're saying there are no more conflict of interest laws? Did you read the link you provided?

 

[George Costanza]

According to the link you posted, The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to "pare the law down to it's core" which meant that it can only be applied to bribery and kickbacks.

The 6 Justices that pared the law down included:

Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Sonia Sotomayor

Um, those justices were nominated by whom?

You, just like many in the Democrat Party, didn't do any reading. Perhaps that "shrinkage" is going on in your brain as well?

I said, I WAS IN THE POOL! Doesn't anybody listen to me?

Look - prior to the Supremes' paring down of this law, it had been used by prosecutors to go after greedy corporate execs for any number of reasons. I am not in favor of vague laws, but I am less in favor of corporate greed. So, like anyone else, when it suits my purpose, I am more than willing to set my principles aside.

After yesterday's decision, the ONLY types of corporate crimes that fall under this particular statute are bribes and kickbacks. Conflict of interest (and God knows what else) is/are now something that will no longer be addressed. That bothers me.

BTW - thanks for the positive rep points based on the OP. I appreciate your support.

So you're saying there are no more conflict of interest laws? Did you read the link you provided?

I'm not saying that - to be honest, I don't know about federal laws which ride herd on big business. That's not my department. But I am saying that, formerly, they did use this particular law to prosecute conflict of interest cases and now they will not be able to do so as a consequence of this decision.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I said, I WAS IN THE POOL! Doesn't anybody listen to me?

Look - prior to the Supremes' paring down of this law, it had been used by prosecutors to go after greedy corporate execs for any number of reasons. I am not in favor of vague laws, but I am less in favor of corporate greed. So, like anyone else, when it suits my purpose, I am more than willing to set my principles aside.

After yesterday's decision, the ONLY types of corporate crimes that fall under this particular statute are bribes and kickbacks. Conflict of interest (and God knows what else) is/are now something that will no longer be addressed. That bothers me.

BTW - thanks for the positive rep points based on the OP. I appreciate your support.

So you're saying there are no more conflict of interest laws? Did you read the link you provided?

I'm not saying that - to be honest, I don't know about federal laws which ride herd on big business. That's not my department. But I am saying that, formerly, they did use this particular law to prosecute conflict of interest cases and now they will not be able to do so as a consequence of this decision.

They used this law to prosecute conflict of interest cases the conflict of interest laws don't cover because they are not actually conflict of interest.

 

[uscitizen]

Well, Bush's gang of Right-Wing jurists just keeps rolling along. The most recent outrage concerns The Supreme's efforts to save the lovable asses of those two corporate crooks, former Enron chief Jeffrey Skilling and former newspaper magnate, Conrad Black. Skillings and Black had been convicted under the so-called "honest services" law which makes it illegal to deny someone the intangible right to one's "honest services."

Admittedly a somewhat vague statute, The Supremes eliminated that feature by ruling in these cases that the honest services law may only be used to prosecute bribes and kickbacks, neither of which Skilling or Black had been guilty of. (They both remain in prison however on other convictions.)

This ruling of The Supremes greatly lessens the ability of prosecutors to go after corporate biggies for screwing others, and greatly broadens the ability of corporate biggies to do precisely that - something near and dear to the lovable heart of the GOP, of course. For example, conflicts of interest are no longer on the list of offenses punishable under the law. Henceforth, if Clarence Crass, CEO of Up Yours, Inc., awards a huge contract to a construction firm in which his wife is a major shareholder, he can no longer be prosecuted under the honest services law. Formerly, he could have been.

I'm telling you - we are flipping IN for it.

SCOTUSblog “Honest services” law pared down

Suprised? I thought more realized that the USA is now mostly a Politicorp.