They themselves took millions in “gratuities” of their own
If the six right-wing dogmatists who now literally rule
the Supreme Court wonder why 70 percent of the American people consider them
somewhere between politically corrupt and grotesque, they might re-read their
own Kafkasesque decision last month perverting the meaning of bribery.
By Ted Littleford
Appropriately enough, the case involved garbage trucks.
A small town Indiana mayor had funneled a million-dollar
contract for new garbage trucks to a local seller, which then made a $13,000
payoff to the mayor. Obvious graft.
But no, the six supremes decreed that the payoff
was not illegal, because it was given to the
mayor after the garbage truck contract was issued.
Taking money before would be a bribe, they babbled, but money given afterwards
is an innocent “gratuity” — like tipping a waiter for good service.
The court’s distortion of kindergarten-level ethics was written by Brett Kavanaugh, infamous for his own frat-boy moral contortions. In his formal opinion, Brett rhetorically asked if such after-the-fact kickbacks should be considered bribes. “The answer,” he proclaimed,” is no.”
Of course, as any reasonable person would tell the
black-robed fabricator, the obvious answer is: “Heck yes!”
Kavanaugh even tried to trivialize such official bribery,
calling it no more sinister than parents sending a gift basket to thank their
child’s teacher for a job well done. Sure — a $13,000 gift basket!
The truck dealer was obviously rewarding the mayor for
handing out a million taxpayer dollars to it. Of course, these six supremes
aren’t merely defending small potato malfeasance by local officials — they’re
creating a legalistic loophole for the court’s own members to keep taking
millions of dollars in “gratuities’ from corporate interests seeking judicial
favors.
It’s a case of corrupt judges voting to legalize their
corruption.
OtherWords columnist Jim
Hightower is a radio commentator, writer, and public speaker.
This op-ed was distributed by OtherWords.org.