- 1/ This is true if you think that John Roberts's and Anthony Kennedy's understanding of corruption in the context of nonjudicial candidates and government officials *is* the meaning of corruption.
- Corruption requires explict quid pro quo. It is not corrupt to take an action that aligns with the interest of a person who gives you a gift, unless the official action was in direct response to that gift--a bribe. Terms matter. Accuracy and fairness matters. Regardless of what social media wants.
- 2/ Of course, until a couple of decades ago, the Supreme Court had a broader understanding of corruption even in those contexts. And even today, the Supreme Court applies a looser standard of corruption when dealing with elected judicial officials. See papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
- 3/ But most importantly, there is absolutely no reason why our public discussion of what is or is not corrupt should be limited by the stunted conception that the Roberts Court has chosen to apply.
- I think Roberts and Kennedy are corrupted, so let’s fix that
- *Is* it even a true description of the SCOTUS definition? Can’t the quid pro quo be implicit? You don’t need like a signed contract or a confession, right?
- Pam Bondi isn't TECHNICALLY being bribed because she USED TO GET $100k a month from Qatar. But, c'mon: she surely has fond memories of gorging at the trough and knows that, if she nukes this deal, the slop will stop. Once you're in, you're in until you're out. And you do what you can to stay in.
