>Supreme Court finds that (a) bribes and gratuities are a different crimes under federal law
This is literally my entire point. This is not a nuanced conversation because the supreme court invented a distinction. Read Code § 666, it's intent is utterly clear.
You asked why the opinion is worth reading: because it lays out an argument for why a distinction exists, and has been recognized and differentiated by comparable laws, and isn't by §666.
You can disagree with the reasoning, but there is reasoning there. You can disagree with the outcome (and you should!) but that's an issue for your legislators (federal, state and local), not the judiciary.
If we've learned anything from Roe, it's that federal precedent is an absolutely unsound basis for policy implementations. Decisions like this (and there are going to be more of them) are argument and impetus for more and better __law__ at state, local, and federal levels.
