The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Why Are Corruption Cases Crumbling? Some Blame the Supreme Court
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Oh, how the mighty have not fallen.

Sheldon Silver, the powerful former speaker of the New York State Assembly, survived his corruption prosecution in July. That’s when an appeals court overturned his bribery conviction.

The next to slip away was William J. Jefferson, a onetime Democratic congressman from Louisiana. The bulk of his conviction — which occurred after he was caught with $90,000 in his freezer — was tossed out in October.

Then, on Thursday prosecutors who specialize in graft suffered what amounted to a double disappointment: within hours of each other, two different juries declared that they were deadlocked in the high-profile corruption trials of Robert Menendez, a Democratic senator from New Jersey, and Norman Seabrook, the longtime leader of the corrections officers’ union in New York.

It would seem that the government is having trouble indicting public figures and making the charges stick. But however demoralizing this recent string of losses may have been for prosecutors and law enforcement agents, it cannot be solely blamed on them.

The law itself has also played a part.

In the last two decades, legal experts say, the United States Supreme Court has slowly eroded the country’s body of corruption laws, shifting the jurisprudential landscape in a manner that has raised the bar when it comes to prosecuting politicians accused of dabbling in dubious behavior. The experts say that conduct that was once clearly deemed to be illegal has now been redefined as politics as usual.

“For years, the court has been hacking away at the prosecutorial tools for combating bribery and corruption,” said Zephyr Teachout, a law professor at Fordham University in New York who has written extensively on the issue and who ran for governor in 2014. “Increasingly, the court has made it really hard to bring cases against anyone but the most inept criminals.”

The trend began in 1999 when a Supreme Court case called United States v. Sun Diamond Growers of California chipped away at the government’s ability to prosecute officials for taking what are known as gratuities — or minor gifts given to them by businesses or allies. The opinion found that gratuities were illegal only if the government could connect the gifts to specific favors by officials, establishing a visible quid pro quo.

• Category: Ideology • Tags: Corruption, Supreme Court 
Hide One CommentLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Lawyers figuring out how to protect other lawyers from being punished for violating the law. What a surprise.

    In any court case, if you want to predict the outcome the best method is to ask, “What’s best for the legal profession?” One of the best recent examples involves suing web sites for the comments made by their readers. The best thing for the public would be for the court to declare that a post on Yelp is of such little consequence that suing for defamation is a waste of everyone’s time, and besides, it’s free speech, so forget about it. Instead, appeals courts create convoluted rules that allow the incensed party to file subpoenas, reveal the identity of the person who made the post, and allow a long and protracted legal squabble over whether some dentist was actually rude or not. Which creates an unlimited cornucopia of billable hours for lawyers. No one will ever make another Yelp post without consulting competent counsel.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution