Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

former9thward

(31,805 posts)
Mon Jun 27, 2016, 11:00 AM Jun 2016

Supreme Court unanimously rules for former Va. governor McDonnell

Source: Washington Post

The decision was written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

“If the court below determines that there is sufficient evidence for a jury to convict Governor McDonnell of committing or agreeing to commit an ‘official act,’ his case may be set for a new trial,” Roberts wrote. “If the court instead determines that the evidence is insufficient, the charges against him must be dismissed. We express no view on that question.”

Roberts added: “There is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that. But our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and ball gowns. It is instead with the broader legal implications of the government’s boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute.”

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/06/27/supreme-court-unanimously-rules-for-former-va-governor-mcdonnell/?utm_term=.f70f1f1716c9&wpisrc=al_alert-COMBO-local%252Bnational

33 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Supreme Court unanimously rules for former Va. governor McDonnell (Original Post) former9thward Jun 2016 OP
Ugh. Eugene Jun 2016 #1
Because of the law involved or the persons involved? n/t Igel Jun 2016 #2
I trust the liberals on the court yeoman6987 Jun 2016 #5
Thanks. I hadn't seen that decision posted yet. mahatmakanejeeves Jun 2016 #3
It's very, very difficult to convict anyone for bribery anymore Craig234 Jun 2016 #4
Sure, kacekwl Jun 2016 #6
True, but IL Gov Rod Blagojevich was convicted without actually receiving anything! Chasstev365 Jun 2016 #10
You Forgot To Mention. . . ProfessorGAC Jun 2016 #20
No Argument! Chasstev365 Jun 2016 #22
CAUGHT ON TAPE Craig234 Jun 2016 #29
Excellent Point! Chasstev365 Jun 2016 #32
As long as the entire sordid affair is stuck to him like tar, I can forgo the feathers. (n/t) Moostache Jun 2016 #7
Really? JackRiddler Jun 2016 #33
I'm going to change my 1st name to kacekwl Jun 2016 #8
His conviction was an important part of where the GOP is now. underpants Jun 2016 #9
Post removed Post removed Jun 2016 #11
Well he was convicted at one point underpants Jun 2016 #13
He may well be convicted again. But at this point, he's never been legally convicted because of 24601 Jun 2016 #14
I doubt they go after him again underpants Jun 2016 #15
This is disgusting. Scruffy1 Jun 2016 #21
Way to completely legalize bribery Supreme Court! This is as bad as the Citizen's United decision.nt w4rma Jun 2016 #12
w4rma, the fact that the decision is unanimous sugggests that it is based on an objective analysis Nitram Jun 2016 #18
The Supreme Court usually only gets involved in Constitutional matters. w4rma Jun 2016 #19
No w4ma, that is a misreading of the decision. Nitram Jun 2016 #30
Actually no...this doesn't legalize bribery. nadine_mn Jun 2016 #23
There's another case Coolest Ranger Jun 2016 #16
I'm surprised and disappointed, but a unanimous decision suggests that the decision... Nitram Jun 2016 #17
Find this disgusting angrychair Jun 2016 #24
Just started checking today's news. elleng Jun 2016 #25
Happy? ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jun 2016 #26
Waiting, Waiting, Waiting. elleng Jun 2016 #28
InJustice Roberts and Co. Need To Be Impeached. harrose Jun 2016 #27
But it is there job to make a ruling based on the legislation, which is exactly what they did. Nitram Jun 2016 #31
 

yeoman6987

(14,449 posts)
5. I trust the liberals on the court
Mon Jun 27, 2016, 11:35 AM
Jun 2016

They didn't find fault with McDonald and the liberals uphold the law so I am cool with this outcome. I find the abortion case more important.

ProfessorGAC

(64,425 posts)
20. You Forgot To Mention. . .
Mon Jun 27, 2016, 02:55 PM
Jun 2016

. . . that he received nothing, IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE!

Illinoisans know he was dirty. Always was.

 

Craig234

(335 posts)
29. CAUGHT ON TAPE
Tue Jun 28, 2016, 06:55 AM
Jun 2016

And explicitly offering one thing for money. That is an extremely rare case in how bribery usually works.

Which is why you can so quickly identify that one case - because it sticks out, the exception that proves the rule.

 

JackRiddler

(24,979 posts)
33. Really?
Tue Jun 28, 2016, 10:18 AM
Jun 2016

Long as miscreants are occasionally embarrassed without actual penalty, they can make off with the swag? Is that the theory of deterrence? White-collar crime pays, except in the unlikely event you are exposed your reputation may suck? That might bother your mind during your cushy retirement years?

underpants

(182,279 posts)
9. His conviction was an important part of where the GOP is now.
Mon Jun 27, 2016, 11:50 AM
Jun 2016

What could have been. He could have been the anti-Trump

From the soap opera that played out here in Richmond it was clear that the McDonnell's were broke. If he (or his wife) had just waited he'd be pulling in HUGE money from at least one of the big law firm/lobbyists downtown.

AND

He was an almost perfect candidate. Lifetime Commonwealth's Attorney (D. A.), direct ties to Pat Robertson, Army National Guard -deployed I think, former Governor in swing state. If he'd gotten some money in his pocket and wanted to get back in Trump wouldn't have happened or at least McDonnell would have been brought in to stop him. His conviction, in my opinion, set the ball rolling on where we are now.

Response to underpants (Reply #9)

underpants

(182,279 posts)
13. Well he was convicted at one point
Mon Jun 27, 2016, 12:40 PM
Jun 2016

but I meant more in terms of the GOP wouldn't want someone who was in the midst of a criminal case.

24601

(3,940 posts)
14. He may well be convicted again. But at this point, he's never been legally convicted because of
Mon Jun 27, 2016, 01:17 PM
Jun 2016

errors by the trial court.

No party wants candidates tied up in the criminal justice system. It's just another negative that provides plenty of information for opponents and makes it less likely someone will run for, or win, a nomination.

But what happens when we have a candidate locked-in - and then the criminal justice system kicks in? Counting on a candidate to gracefully drop out seems like a losing strategy.

Scruffy1

(3,239 posts)
21. This is disgusting.
Mon Jun 27, 2016, 03:23 PM
Jun 2016

the bar for bribery keeps getting higher. They won't even hear the case of a former Alabama governor in prison for a lot less. The Supreme Court is so far removed from reality It's funny how people think that "liberal justices" must be right all time. The Supremes voted 9-0 to keep Eugene Debs in prison for his anti-war stance, including Brandeis. He was later pardoned by Harding.

 

w4rma

(31,700 posts)
12. Way to completely legalize bribery Supreme Court! This is as bad as the Citizen's United decision.nt
Mon Jun 27, 2016, 12:12 PM
Jun 2016

Nitram

(22,671 posts)
18. w4rma, the fact that the decision is unanimous sugggests that it is based on an objective analysis
Mon Jun 27, 2016, 02:19 PM
Jun 2016

law. Blame the law, not the judges.

 

w4rma

(31,700 posts)
19. The Supreme Court usually only gets involved in Constitutional matters.
Mon Jun 27, 2016, 02:41 PM
Jun 2016

Did this court just nullify Virginia's anti-corruption law(s) by declaring a "First Amendment" "right" to bribery?

Nitram

(22,671 posts)
30. No w4ma, that is a misreading of the decision.
Tue Jun 28, 2016, 08:30 AM
Jun 2016

The Supreme Court not only rules on constitutional issues, it is also the court of last appeal in cases that rise through the court system appeal by appeal. Based on the wording of the legislation the Feds used to charge the governor, the court unanimously ruled that the governor made no "official acts" in return for the gifts he received. Ruth Bader Ginsberg, for one, would never compromise her understanding of the law for political reasons. It would be up to Congress and/or the commonwealth of Virginia, to tighten up the language in the legislation to include the type of activity that the governor engaged in.

nadine_mn

(3,702 posts)
23. Actually no...this doesn't legalize bribery.
Mon Jun 27, 2016, 03:31 PM
Jun 2016

In this specific case, SCOTUS ruled that the lower Courts' interpretation of what constitutes an official act was too broad. McConnell is def a sleaze bag.

But if you substitute a normal human, take my Governor Mark Dayton and instead of big tobacco make the "briber" me as a normal citizen you can see where that over broad interpretation is problematic.

So I do the "tawdry" stuff (love that word) - make gifts of cars and watches. I am also very interested in the impact a new marina built in my hometown will have on a rare species of lake trout. I form a non profit and want the University of Minnesota to launch a study on it. U of M ignores my repeated requests (because they are overwhelmed with such requests) and I write a letter to Gov Dayton complaining and urging him to do something.

Gov Dayton makes a call to the U, says hey can you meet with my constituent, in fact I can schedule one here. U of M says sure and we meet and talk fish. The lower Court ruled that is enough to constitute bribery. SCOTUS said hold up...the Gov just initiated a meeting. He didn't tell the U to launch a study, he didn't put forth a bill to launch a study .. He just initiated a meeting between two parties. Or if instead of scheduling a meeting, Dayton invites me and my group to the fishing opener along with other people. Lower court said that would be a bribe (I switched state ball with state fishing opener which is way more important). That isn't really him taking action or decisions on my groups behalf... that's just him doing his usual thing.

Does it look bad that I made several gifts to him, including a new boat? You betcha. But he didn't do anything in his official capacity that would be considered acting or influencing law, a court case, etc on my behalf.

That is why it was a unaminous decision...the scope was too broad. Anything could be considered an official act because the Governor is an official and he acted. There needs to be more to it.

Coolest Ranger

(2,034 posts)
16. There's another case
Mon Jun 27, 2016, 01:48 PM
Jun 2016

in VA where a Norfolk official is going through the same thing. I'm sure Channel 3, 10, and 13 are going to be leading with this tonight

Nitram

(22,671 posts)
17. I'm surprised and disappointed, but a unanimous decision suggests that the decision...
Mon Jun 27, 2016, 02:17 PM
Jun 2016

...is based on a careful reading of the legislation concerned. However, a politician who was once expected to run for president could never win the presidency now.

angrychair

(8,594 posts)
24. Find this disgusting
Mon Jun 27, 2016, 05:18 PM
Jun 2016

As a former citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia when McDipshit was governor, this is a travesty of justice.
There was extensive investigative reporting done and almost all of it came up during the trail, this guy is a serious dirtbag.
You can shade in any manner you want, like "unanimous decision", but this guy is a criminal.

More importantly it will and does have far reaching implications when it comes to bribery and racketeering laws and "conduct in office" laws.
This was the dinner bell to an all you can eat buffet for political figures.

elleng

(130,156 posts)
25. Just started checking today's news.
Mon Jun 27, 2016, 07:03 PM
Jun 2016

Has anyone mentioned Governor Siegelman's situation, vis a vis McDonnell?

Nitram

(22,671 posts)
31. But it is there job to make a ruling based on the legislation, which is exactly what they did.
Tue Jun 28, 2016, 08:32 AM
Jun 2016

Congress needs to tighten up the legislation to include the acts the governor committed in this case.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Supreme Court unanimously...