April 27, 2016 | WaPo | Robert Barnes and Laura Vozzella | 1 hr ago
In a not really all that surprising turn..
Supreme Court justices on Wednesday seemed highly skeptical of former Virginia governor Robert F. McDonnell’s 2014 corruption conviction for actions he took on behalf of a businessman who provided his family with more than $175,000 in benefits.
Roberts is saying that the laws used to convict McDonnell are too vague. Justice Breyer is a bit worried to:
Justice Stephen G. Breyer said he worried about prosecutors having too much power in deciding when politicians cross the line from political favors to criminal acts, even if it “will leave some corrupt behavior unprosecuted.”
Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben, representing the government pushed back saying:
McDonnell was urging a reading of the law that provides “a recipe for corruption.”
Both justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg had a different take on it than McDonnell his lawyer and Justice Roberts:
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg voiced some support for the government’s position. Ginsburg told Francisco (ex-governor Bob McDonnell’s lawyer) that under his reading of the law, a government official would be able to say,
“You want a meeting, pay me a thousand dollars.”
For some background:
In the campaign contribution context, the court said in Citizens United v. FEC that “ingratiation or access” contributions bring did not constitute corruption.
The court has also said that laws governing the conduct of politicians must be limited essentially to bribery and kickbacks.
A jury — and then a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond — said McDonnell’s conduct fit the bill.
— emphasis added
I’m sure things are more complicate and all, but It looks again like the “conservative” arguments are geared toward trying to find ways to legalize “pay-to-play” — at least to this non-lawyer
* * *
- back to the bathroom remodel work until later...