People are way overreacting to this. This decision was 100% about a federal statute. Unaffected are the MANY, MANY state and local laws preventing state and local government employees from taking gifts.
Edit: for y’all downvoters, even the linked article states
In any event, the decision in *Snyder *is narrow. It does not rule that Congress could not ban gratuities. It simply rules that this particular statute only reaches bribes.
Yet another thing that tens of millions of people across the country would instantly lose their job for
Would they? Vendors in the private sector are constantly handing out goodies to clients. Sports tickets, food, gift baskets and more. Hell, I’ve seen vendors pay for vacations in the private sector.
Also, as the case states, these things are largely illegal to varying degrees at the state level for state and local employees. This decision just said the Feds can’t pile on with additional charges.
Or, better yet, do we need to embrace the idea that infinite growth isn’t possible, and adopt economic systems that do not rely on it?
Always someone else’s fault.
I paid attention. I just don’t agree and in your reasoning poor.
We can save more infants, so that means no more meat. That is some non sequitor.
So you want us to somehow magically have the greenhouse gas emissions of an Indian, but think we can just have a high standard of living by having Soviet-style housing blocks (famous for being bleak and depressing)? That does not seem grounded in reality.
Edit: and meat is one of the few things I can eat. Not giving that up. Humans have eaten meat since before civilization. It’s a clear sign that overpopulation is a major issue that something that humans have done for eons is suddenly a problem.
Have you seen how people in the slums of India live? No one wants that life. It is not unreasonable to want a fair standard of living.
It’s amazing how many people I talk to about overpopulation simply that we get 50% of the land (or more!) and the rest of all other animals get to fight over the rest.
Those places are also inhospitable to most life, period. Just because the TD habitable to humans doesn’t make it ours, either.
Sounds like a bullied girl that was being assaulted fought back, only to face expulsion for it. Then the superintendent rolled his eyes at the bullying in her hearing.
And there is no constitutional right to bump stocks. They just ruled there is no current law against it. If there was a constitutional right to them, you couldn’t ban them even with a law.
I didn’t say he was asking where the ban is.
My point is, they did not rule a ban unconstitutional, since they asked where it was in the constitution.
That wasn’t remotely the basis of the ruling. It was essentially ruled that they don’t meet the definition of a machine gun in the law, which limits what the ATF can do. It was mentioned that congress can amend the law and ban them. They just haven’t.
And that’s just what was disclosed. Remember him and Alito were claiming stuff was “personal hospitality” and didn’t need reported.
Wealthy employers shrug over falling standard of living and lack of affordable housing and food
If you don’t like the UN, Israel, then perhaps they should also repeal Resolution 181 (II).
I have read it, and find it bullshit. Libertarians always manage to decide to “strategically” vote for the Republican that promises authoritarianism but also promises low taxes. Again, it’s not about what Libertarians say they support, it’s who they actually support.
This case isn’t about a fed, it’s a local official.
There are other rules governing most federal employees. This is only one specific federal criminal law.