Are Biden's issuance of presidential pardons going too far?

[Marener]

No stupid, I said that's what the Supreme Court ruled. See my link.

Learn to read, Moroner.

Show me a case brought to the SCOTUS.

GO!

As stated before, you're misinterpreting that the Supreme Court has said.

People have been given pardons that violate your stipulations. In fact, Bannon was given a pardon before he was convicted. Show me a SCOTUS case that has ever struck down any of these pardons which you consider unconstitutional.

 

[Nostra]

As stated before, you're misinterpreting that the Supreme Court has said.

People have been given pardons that violate your stipulations. In fact, Bannon was given a pardon before he was convicted. Show me a SCOTUS case that has ever struck down any of these pardons which you consider unconstitutional.

Once again stupid, I didn't have to 'interpret' anything. The text is clear. You are just too stupid to comprehend it.

None of the pardons you cite have been challenged in court. We may see that change with the Biden Crime Family Syndicate and J6 Clownshow pardons.

 

[Marener]

Once again stupid, I didn't have to 'interpret' anything. The text is clear. You are just too stupid to comprehend it.

None of the pardons you cite have been challenged in court. We may see that change with the Biden Crime Family Syndicate and J6 Clownshow pardons.

Great. So your claim that SCOTUS thinks these types of pardons are unconstitutional is baseless.

 

[Nostra]

Great. So your claim that SCOTUS thinks these types of pardons are unconstitutional is baseless.

Wrong again, Moroner.

The precedent we have from the SC is that pardons are for "convicted" people. That makes Tater's pardons unconstitutional, and once challenged in court they will be ruled as such based on precedent by the SC.

Holy shit you are stupid.

 

[Nostra]

Great. So your claim that SCOTUS thinks these types of pardons are unconstitutional is baseless.

I have produced a SC ruling confirming my position.

Now you produce a SC ruling saying blanket pardons covering any crime over a decade for people who have not been charged with a crime is Constitutional.

Betcha can't.

GO!

 

[Marener]

I have produced a SC ruling confirming my position.

No you haven’t. You just said there’s no SC case that declares any such pardon unconstitutional.

The power of pardon conferred by the Constitution upon the President is unlimited except in cases of impeachment. It extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment. The power is not subject to legislative control.

Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. 333 (1866)

Ex parte Garland

supreme.justia.com

 

[Marener]

Wrong again, Moroner.

The precedent we have from the SC is that pardons are for "convicted" people. That makes Tater's pardons unconstitutional, and once challenged in court they will be ruled as such based on precedent by the SC.

Holy shit you are stupid.

Show me the pardon that was declared unconstitutional because they hadn’t been convicted.

 

[Nostra]

Show me the pardon that was declared unconstitutional because they hadn’t been convicted.

None have been challenged in court yet, you blithering moron.

We have been over this. Holy shit you are beyond stupid.

Found that SC ruling saying these are Constitutional yet?

Betcha can't.

GO!

 

[Marener]

None have been challenged in court yet, you blithering moron.

So you lied when you said there was precedent.

Thanks.

 

[Nostra]

So you lied when you said there was precedent.

Thanks.

Nope. The precedent has been posted, Dumbass. The SC ruled that pardons are for people convicted for offenses against the United States.

That has nothing to do with the fact none of these have been challenged.

 

[Marener]

That has nothing to do with the fact none of these have been challenged.

If it wasn't challenged, then there's no precedent. Are you referring to dicta? That's not precedent.

 

[Nostra]

If it wasn't challenged, then there's no precedent. Are you referring to dicta? That's not precedent.

Your inability to read for comprehension is amazing. Find a third grader to explain the SC ruling in question, Simp.

 

[Marener]

Your inability to read for comprehension is amazing. Find a third grader to explain the SC ruling in question, Simp.

There is no SC ruling in question. You already admitted you lied.

 

[Nostra]

There is no SC ruling in question. You already admitted you lied.

Yes there is, and no I didn't.

Once again you are caught in a lie.

 

[otto105]

Fauci & Cheney are traitors of the state , they betrayed the American people

~S~

Put ice on the sore bagina snowflake

 

[otto105]

Once again stupid, I didn't have to 'interpret' anything. The text is clear. You are just too stupid to comprehend it.

None of the pardons you cite have been challenged in court. We may see that change with the Biden Crime Family Syndicate and J6 Clownshow pardons.

Hilarious

What did comer Pyle and gym Jordan find after 2 fuckup years of investigation?

Your air dicks?

 

[Marener]

Yes there is, and no I didn't.

Once again you are caught in a lie.

You already admitted there isn't. Keep your story straight, moron.

None have been challenged in court yet, you blithering moron.

No challenges means no precedent. Come back to me when you have a case.

 

[otto105]

You already admitted there isn't. Keep your story straight, moron.

No challenges means no precedent. Come back to me when you have a case.

Can we just pardon white internet drug dealers…

 

[Ret Old Man]

Trump is attacking anyone who ever testified against him

Biden is just protecting them from retribution

Trump isn't seeking revenge, he is too busy doing what it takes to get the country back on track.

 

[rightwinger]

Trump isn't seeking revenge, he is too busy doing what it takes to get the country back on track.

Driving us off a cliff