We’re Gonna Need A Bigger Boat

I wonder if Noah said that to God when God told him to “Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate, and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his mate, and seven pairs of the birds of the heavens also, male and female, to keep their offspring alive on the face of all the earth”…but, that aside, the reason for the flood was that “the world was full of violence”…”and wickedness”…we haven’t come that far…it seems like we’re talking today…the world is full of autocrats…ruling through fear and violence…and what can we say about the Republican cult of personality…a man who is off his rocker…a man whose cheese has slipped off his cracker…a man who is unhinged…and I’m hoping trump will show his true colors in the first debate tomorrow night…I still think trump will not show up…but then he would appear weak…he can’t do that…there’s no audience, when either trump or Biden are speaking, the other’s microphone will be turned off…it remains to be seen whether or not this will help, and not be the same scenario as the debate prior to the 2016 election…or the trump 2012 creepiness…shadowing Hillary…trump’s been talking about sharks lately…he was like Jaws shadowing Hillary…I only wish she would have backed up to him…he would have fallen down…stepping on his own feet trying to get out of the way…we only have to wait until tomorrow night to see what goes down…

and speaking of wickedness…the Supreme Court gave itself and especially Clarence Thomas a free pass… making bribery okay…from Google: “The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that a federal anti-bribery law does not make it a crime for state and local officials to accept a gratuity for acts that they have already taken.”… from The New York Times by Abbie VanSickle and Adam Liptak: “Corruption Law Allows Gifts to State and Local Officials, Supreme Court Rules: The court, which has limited the sweep of several anti-corruption laws, distinguished after-the-fact rewards from before-the-fact bribes.: The Supreme Court limited the sweep of a federal law on Wednesday aimed at public corruption, ruling that it did not apply to gifts and payments meant to reward actions taken by state and local officials.

The 6-to-3 ruling, which split along ideological lines, was the latest in a series of decisions cutting back federal anti-corruption laws.

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, writing for a conservative majority, said that the question in the case was whether federal law makes it a crime for state and local officials to accept such gratuities after the fact. He wrote, “The answer is no.”

Federal prosecutors’ interpretation of the law created traps for public officials, leaving them to guess what gifts were allowed, he added. If they guessed wrong, the opinion continued, the officials could face up to a decade in prison.In 2014, after the process was complete, the company cut Mr. Snyder a check for $13,000 for what he later said were consulting services.

The F.B.I. and federal prosecutors said the bidding process had been manipulated to ensure the company prevailed. Investigators said the money was a gratuity for the garbage truck contracts, but Mr. Snyder said it was payment for his consulting services as a contractor for Peterbilt.

A jury convicted Mr. Snyder of accepting an illegal gratuity, and a federal judge sentenced him to more than a year in prison. On appeal, Mr. Snyder argued that the federal statute criminalized only bribes, not after-the-fact gratuities. A federal appeals court affirmed his conviction, and Mr. Snyder petitioned the Supreme Court to review the case.

The majority explained that the law typically makes a distinction between bribes — payments made or agreed to before a government action to influence the outcome — and gratuities — payments made after a government action to reward or thank the public official.

Although bribes are frowned upon as inherently corrupt, the majority noted, federal, state and local governments have treated gratuities with more nuance.In its reasoning, the conservative majority said it relied on statutory history and text, among other factors, to find that the federal statute focused on bribes, not gratuities.

Justice Kavanaugh wrote that such gifts to officials were often already regulated by state and local governments. The federal law, he wrote, “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, he wrote, the law “leaves it to state and local governments to regulate gratuities to state and local officials.”

To uphold prosecutors’ interpretation of the law “would significantly infringe on bedrock federalism principles,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote.

The federal law, he added, lacked clear guidance for local officials to follow, leaving them to try to discern what actions might amount to a violation.He cited examples, nodding to the case’s origins in Indiana.

“Could students take their college professor out to Chipotle for an end-of-term celebration?” he wrote. “And if so, would it somehow become criminal to take the professor for a steak dinner? Or to treat her to a Hoosiers game?”

While “American law generally treats bribes as inherently corrupt and unlawful,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote, gratuities are another matter. Some can be “problematic,” while others can be “commonplace and might be innocuous.”

He listed examples. A family tipping their mail carrier. Parents sending a gift basket to thank their child’s teacher at the end of the school year. A college dean giving a sweatshirt to a city council member who speaks at an event.

Those examples, he wrote, suggest that “gratuities after the official act are not the same as bribes before the official act,” adding that unlike gratuities, “bribes can corrupt the official act — meaning that the official takes the act for private gain, not for the public good.”

In a concurring opinion, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote that the decision reflected an age-old understanding that when “any fair reader of this statute would be left with a reasonable doubt” as to whether the law applied to the defendant’s actions, the court must err on the side of the person charged with the crime.The court in recent years has narrowly interpreted anti-corruption laws.

Last year, it threw out two fraud convictions involving accusations of bid rigging and illicit payments during the administration of Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, a New York Democrat.

In 2020, the court unanimously overturned the convictions of two defendants in the so-called Bridgegate scandal, in which associates of Chris Christie, a Republican who was the governor of New Jersey, closed access lanes to the George Washington Bridge in 2013 to punish one of his political opponents. That was an abuse of power, the court ruled, but not a federal crime.

Similarly, the court in 2016 unanimously overturned the conviction of Bob McDonnell, a former governor of Virginia. Mr. McDonnell, a Republican, had accepted luxury products, loans and vacations from a business executive.”…common sense tells us all bribes are corrupt…whether or not it’s a “gratuity”…sounds like Clarence Thomas accepted over $4 million in “gratuities”…the “conservative” majority covering their butts…and how ridiculous comparing a gift basket to your child’s teacher, or a tip to you postman at Christmas?…really ridiculous, against common sense…the Court rules it’s okay to take “bribes” as long as it is after the fact…the Court is open for business, and for sale…this from the Alliance for Justice: “Supreme Court Rules Bribes are Fine if You’re Paid Later: WASHINGTON, D.C., June 26, 2024 – Today the Supreme Court issued its decision in Snyder v. U.S., with the 6–3 conservative majority ruling to weaken bribery laws for public officials at the state, local, and tribal level to allow for “gratuities” — gifts and rewards paid after an action is taken.

As Justice Jackson wrote in her dissent, this “absurd and atextual reading of the statute is one only today’s Court could love.” Justices Alito and Thomas have been publicly scrutinized for some time now about the massive gifts they have received and the undue influence it may have on their jurisprudence. Thomas, in particular, has publicly changed his opinion on Chevron deference to conform to the preferences of his billionaire “friends,” which could be hugely consequential in another ruling expected in the coming days.

Alliance for Justice Vice President of Strategy Keith Thirion issued the following statement: “The conservative justices ruling that it should be easier for public officials to receive gifts is perhaps the least surprising outcome of the term. While claiming to be concerned with bribery, the Court has just greenlit it by allowing payments after the fact in the form of rewards called ‘gratuities.’ Given the lavish gifts we know at least Justices Thomas and Alito have received, it’s no surprise that they’re quick to defend officials’ right to receive them.”… from VOX by Ian Millhiser: “The Supreme Court rules that state officials can engage in a little corruption, as a treat: Snyder v. US is the Republican justices’ latest decision weakening anti-corruption laws.: On a 6-3 party-line vote, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that state officials may accept “gratuities” from people who wish to reward them for their official actions, despite a federal anti-corruption statute that appears to ban such rewards.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the opinion in Snyder v. United States for the Court’s Republican-appointed majority. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the dissent on behalf of the Court’s three Democratic appointees.

Snyder turns on a distinction between “bribes” and “gratuities.” As Kavanaugh writes, “bribes are payments made or agreed to before an official act in order to influence the official with respect to that future official act.” Gratuities, by contrast, “are typically payments made to an official after an official act as a token of appreciation.” (Emphasis added.)If that seems like a negligible difference, the facts of this case will probably only underscore that sentiment.

The case involves James Snyder, a former mayor who accepted a $13,000 gratuity from a truck company after the city purchased five trash trucks from that company for $1.1 million. Snyder claims that the money was a consulting fee, but federal prosecutors nonetheless charged him with violating an anti-corruption statute.

That statute prohibits state officials from “corruptly” accepting “anything of value from any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded” for an official act.

As Jackson writes in her dissent, the most natural reading of this statute is that it targets both bribes (payments that “influenced” a future decision) and gratuities (payments that “rewarded” a past decision). As Jackson writes,

Everyone knows what a reward is. It is a $20 bill pulled from a lost wallet at the time of its return to its grateful owner. A surprise ice cream outing after a report card with straight As. The bar tab picked up by a supervisor celebrating a job well done by her team. A reward often says “thank you” or “good job,” rather than “please.”

Jackson argues that the statute should be read to prohibit “rewards corruptly accepted by government officials in ways that are functionally indistinguishable from taking a bribe,” much like the payment at issue in this case appears to be.Kavanaugh’s majority opinion, meanwhile, relies heavily on policy arguments and other claims that go beyond the statute’s text. He does attempt to make a textual argument — Kavanaugh notes that the statute at issue in Snyder, like a different statute that only concerns bribes, uses the word “corruptly” — but his best arguments are atextual.

Kavanaugh’s strongest argument is that the law makes it a very serious crime, punishable by up to 15 years in prison, for a federal official to accept a bribe, but federal officials who accept gratuities only risk two years in prison. Meanwhile, the statute at issue in Snyder, which only applies to state officials, applies a 10-year sentence across the board. So Kavanaugh argues that it would be odd to read the law to draw a sharp distinction between bribes and gratuities given to federal officials but to make no distinction when state officials accept a gift.

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. That said, the Court’s Republican majority also has a long history of imposing constitutional limits on the government’s ability to fight corruption and restrict money in politics.

It’s also notable that neither Justice Clarence Thomas nor Justice Samuel Alito, both of whom have accepted expensive gifts from politically active Republican billionaires, recused themselves from the case. Thomas and Alito both joined Kavanaugh’s opinion reading the anti-corruption statute narrowly.”…a Comment by Lisa Post to the Times article: “This court twisted the plain meaning of the statute in question and let a criminal go free. The facts are simple. The public official in the case solicited $13000 from a contractor after manipulating the city’s procurement process to award a contract of more than $1 million to the same contractor. In effect, he solicited a reward from the contractor as a thank you. The official argued that the statute prosecutors used only covered bribes and not what he described as a $13000 gratuity received after the fact. But the plain language of the statute covered rewards for official acts solicited corruptly, which this plainly was. So why did the court ignore such plain language to narrowly construe the statute as only pertaining to bribes? Could it be because it struck too close to home? At least one justice on the court routinely receives gifts from billionaires and his conduct can plausibly be construed as corruptly accepting gratuities as a thank you for his official acts. This justice has also received more than $4 million in gifts in his more than 30 years on the court. Indeed, a number of SC justices have accepted valuable gifts in their time on the court, showing they have a flexible attitude where gratuities and gifts are concerned. If the court had found that the anti-corruption statute at issue also covered gratuities, the conduct of some justices could be called into question. This case exemplifies the need for serious court reform.”…Amen and Awomen…!!!…we have another “leaked” ruling on emergency abortion in Idaho…and the Court has yet to rule on trump’s contention that he is “absolutely” immune to prosecution

and speaking of Jaws…Elissa and I were in attendance at the Jaws showing at the Ambler this evening…it was a sold out performance…I’ve only seen a full house for the Little Lebowski nights over the years…Jaws is the official summer blockbuster…the first ever…on a budget of $9 million, it racked up $476.5 million…or clams in keeping with the beach motif…and we have to give a shout out to John Williams score…making just two notes so ominous…from Wikipedia: “Jaws is a 1975 American thriller film directed by Steven Spielberg, based on the 1974 novel by Peter Benchley. It stars Roy Scheider as police chief Martin Brody, who, with the help of a marine biologist (Richard Dreyfuss) and a professional shark hunter (Robert Shaw), hunts a man-eating great white shark that attacks beachgoers at a summer resort town. Murray Hamilton plays the mayor, and Lorraine Gary portrays Brody’s wife. The screenplay is credited to Benchley, who wrote the first drafts, and actor-writer Carl Gottlieb, who rewrote the script during principal photography.

Shot mostly on location at Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts from May to October of 1974, Jaws was the first major motion picture to be shot on the ocean and consequently had a troubled production, going over budget and schedule. As the art department’s mechanical sharks often malfunctioned, Spielberg decided to mostly suggest the shark’s presence, employing an ominous and minimalist theme created by composer John Williams to indicate its impending appearances. Spielberg and others have compared this suggestive approach to that of director Alfred Hitchcock. Universal Pictures‘ release of the film to over 450 screens was an exceptionally wide release for a major studio picture at the time, and it was accompanied by an extensive marketing campaign that heavily emphasized television spots and tie-in merchandise.

Regarded as a watershed moment in motion picture history, Jaws was the prototypical summer blockbuster and won several awards for its music and editing. It was the highest-grossing film of all time until the release of Star Wars two years later; both films were pivotal in establishing the modern Hollywood business model, which pursues high box-office returns from action and adventure films with simple high-concept premises, released during the summer in thousands of theaters and advertised heavily. Jaws was followed by three sequels (none of which involved Spielberg or Benchley) and many imitative thrillers. In 2001, the Library of Congress selected it for preservation in the United States National Film Registry.”…

I always find the backstory so interesting…this was especially true of the CASTING of Jaws…we enjoy Roy Scheider, we enjoy Richard Dreyfuss and we enjoy Robert Shaw…can we not think of anyone else in their roles?…most likely not…and besides, the Shark is the real star of the show…from Wikipedia: “Though Spielberg complied with a request from Zanuck and Brown to cast known actors, he wanted to avoid hiring any big stars. He felt that “somewhat anonymous” performers would help the audience “believe this was happening to people like you and me”, whereas “stars bring a lot of memories along with them, and those memories can sometimes … corrupt the story.” The director added that in his plans “the superstar was gonna be the shark”. The first actors cast were Lorraine Gary, the wife of president of Universal Sidney Sheinberg, as Ellen Brody, and Murray Hamilton as the mayor of Amity Island. Stuntwoman-turned-actress Susan Backlinie was cast as Chrissie (the first victim) as she knew how to swim and was willing to perform nude. Most minor roles were played by residents of Martha’s Vineyard, where the film was shot. One example was Deputy Hendricks, played by future television producer Jeffrey Kramer. Lee Fierro plays Mrs. Kintner, the mother of the shark’s second victim Alex Kintner (played by Jeffrey Voorhees).

The role of Brody was offered to Robert Duvall, but the actor was interested only in portraying Quint. Charlton Heston expressed a desire for the role but Spielberg felt that Heston would bring a screen persona too grand for the part of a police chief of a modest community. Roy Scheider became interested in the project after overhearing Spielberg at a party talk with a screenwriter about having the shark jump up onto a boat.  Spielberg was initially apprehensive about hiring Scheider, fearing he would portray a “tough guy”, similar to his role in The French Connection.

Nine days before the start of production, neither Quint nor Hooper had been cast. The role of Quint was originally offered to actors Lee Marvin and Sterling Hayden, both of whom passed. Zanuck and Brown had just finished working with Robert Shaw on The Sting, and suggested him to Spielberg. Shaw was reluctant to take the role since he did not like the book but decided to accept at the urging of both his wife, actress Mary Ure and his secretary—”The last time they were that enthusiastic was From Russia with Love. And they were right”. Shaw based his performance on fellow cast member Craig Kingsbury, a local fisherman, farmer and legendary eccentric, who was cast in the small role of fisherman Ben Gardner. Spielberg described Kingsbury as “the purest version of who, in my mind, Quint was” and some of his offscreen utterances were incorporated into the script as lines of both Gardner and Quint. Another source for some of Quint’s dialogue and mannerisms, especially in the third act at sea, was Vineyard mechanic and boat-owner Lynn Murphy.

For the role of Hooper, Spielberg initially wanted Jon Voight. Timothy Bottoms, Jan-Michael Vincent, Joel Grey, and Jeff Bridges were also considered for the part. Spielberg’s friend George Lucas suggested Richard Dreyfuss, whom he had directed in American Graffiti. The actor initially passed but changed his decision after he attended a pre-release screening of The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz, which he had just completed. Disappointed in his performance and fearing that no one would want to hire him once Kravitz was released, he immediately called Spielberg and accepted the role in Jaws. Because the film the director envisioned was so dissimilar to Benchley’s novel, Spielberg asked Dreyfuss not to read it. As a result of the casting, Hooper was rewritten to better suit the actor, as well as to be more representative of Spielberg, who came to view Dreyfuss as his “alter ego”….

I packed for my trip last night and this afternoon…asked my neighbor upstairs to water my plants for me, a load off my mind…I cleared my evening so Elissa and I could go be part of the sold out audience of Jaws…she had never seen it on the big screen…the shark is larger than life…I notices a lot of people were wearing Hawaiian shirts…and there was a fellow dressed like Murray Hamilton as the mayor of Amity…”Amity means friendship”…a mayor reluctant to close the beaches, typically worried about money and what it would do to the summer crowd…instead of Richard Dreyfuss saying “he’s waiting around to be the shark’s hot lunch”…and we didn’t see him, the mayor going in the water…Jaws is really scary…helped along by John Williams score…I’m pretty much packed…I can be out of here after showing…having a quick breakfast…and off to visit Maureen and Jeff in Mystic, Connecticut…I should be there in a matters of hours…making the trip to Portland earlier in one fell swoop…I’m happy about that…my poor niece and great niece didn’t get home until 3:30 California time after delay, after delay…just so you know…Southwest Airline…they had trouble coming and going…buyer beware…but now they’re home safe and sound after a great, fun week here and spending a couple of days in New York…happy about that too…

instead of saying “we’re gonna need a bigger boat”…I want to day…we’re gonna need a bigger vote…this November…I’m hoping trump crashes and burns tomorrow night…

found a quarter and a penny….