Ketanji Brown Jackson shames Supreme Court colleagues in 'absurd' bribery ruling dissent

The U.S. Supreme Court released a ruling Wednesday that declared giving gifts to politicians does not constitute bribery under federal law — and the irony was not lost on Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

“State and local governments often regulate the gifts that state and local officials may accept,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the decision. The law, “does not supplement those state and local rules by subjecting 19 million state and local officials to up to 10 years in federal prison for accepting even commonplace gratuities. Rather, [it] leaves it to state and local governments to regulate gratuities to state and local officials.”

In her dissent to Snyder v. United States, Jackson threw shade at her fellow justices who have recently caused outrage after allegations that they accepted gifts from wealthy Republicans.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan also dissented.

"Snyder's absurd and atextual reading of the statute is one only today's Court could love," Jackson writes.

"Ignoring the plain text of [the law] — which, again, expressly targets officials who 'corruptly' solicit, accept, or agree to accept payments 'intending to be influenced or rewarded' — the Court concludes that the statute does not criminalize gratuities at all.

"This is, apparently, because '[s]tate and local governments often regulate the gifts that state and local officials may accept,'"

Justices Clarence Thomas and Kavanaugh have both been accused of accepting lavish trips and other gifts from Republican donor Harlan Crow, though all Supreme Court judges have registered receiving some gifts.

Jackson goes on to say that the court is claiming "nonexistent federalism concerns over the plain text of this statute and is a quintessential example of the tail wagging the dog."

ALSO READ: ‘They could have killed me’: Spycraft, ballots and a Trumped-up plot gone haywire

Jackson says that Congress made it clear that it wanted to regulate anyone accepting federal funds and "it also had the authority to take such legislative action."

"Both the majority and Snyder suggest that interpreting 18 USC 666 to cover gratuities is problematic because it gives 'federal prosecutors unwarranted power to allege crimes that should be handled at the State level,'" Jackson closed. "But woulds, coulds, and shoulds of this nature must be addressed across the street with Congress, not in the pages of the U. S. Reports."

"But, today, the Court can stay silent no longer," wrote Jackson. "Its decision overrides the intent of Congress — and the policy preferences of the constituents that body represents — as unequivocally expressed by the plain text of the statute. Respectfully, I dissent."