Powers of pardon need to be restricted.

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Governors & presidents too often get carried away with this crap. Trump seems to be no different.

 

[candycorn]

It is something that is a giant anachronism to our system. I’ve never understood why it is there to start with.

Good post.

 

[martybegan]

Governors & presidents too often get carried away with this crap. Trump seems to be no different.

it would require constitutional amendments at the State and Federal levels.

good luck with that.

 

[martybegan]

It is something that is a giant anachronism to our system. I’ve never understood why it is there to start with.

Good post.

It is part of the checks and balances system, giving the executive an override of both the judiciary and the legislature in specific instances.

Before trying to get rid of it, first people should try to see what would happen if it was removed.

It would make the Judiciary supreme over the executive in all situations.

 

[candycorn]

It is something that is a giant anachronism to our system. I’ve never understood why it is there to start with.

Good post.

It is part of the checks and balances system, giving the executive an override of both the judiciary and the legislature in specific instances.

Before trying to get rid of it, first people should try to see what would happen if it was removed.

It would make the Judiciary supreme over the executive in all situations.

The executive check on the judiciary already exist in the Presidential power to nominated judges.

 

[pismoe]

seems to me that those being pardoned by TRUMP are good guys [see DeSouza]. At least the ones i have heard about . And speculation on Manafort and Flynn , also good guys as far as i know . Yeah though , mrobama did let a lot of common drug criminals back out on the street so i guess that Americans gotta put up with the good and the bad . I mean , if not The TRUMP , who gets to make the decisions , eh ??

 

[martybegan]

It is something that is a giant anachronism to our system. I’ve never understood why it is there to start with.

Good post.

It is part of the checks and balances system, giving the executive an override of both the judiciary and the legislature in specific instances.

Before trying to get rid of it, first people should try to see what would happen if it was removed.

It would make the Judiciary supreme over the executive in all situations.

The executive check on the judiciary already exist in the Presidential power to nominated judges.

That isn't a check, as once installed only the legislature can impeach a judge if they go off the wire.

Each branch has a before and after check and balance on the other. Removing pardons would remove the "after" balance the executive has on the judiciary.

As an example, the legislature has before checks on the judiciary via senatorial approval, and the ability to pass laws. They have an after check via impeachment and the ability to amend the constitution.

 

[iceberg]

It is something that is a giant anachronism to our system. I’ve never understood why it is there to start with.

Good post.

It is part of the checks and balances system, giving the executive an override of both the judiciary and the legislature in specific instances.

Before trying to get rid of it, first people should try to see what would happen if it was removed.

It would make the Judiciary supreme over the executive in all situations.

good points, as usual.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

It is something that is a giant anachronism to our system. I’ve never understood why it is there to start with.

Good post.

It is part of the checks and balances system, giving the executive an override of both the judiciary and the legislature in specific instances.

Before trying to get rid of it, first people should try to see what would happen if it was removed.

It would make the Judiciary supreme over the executive in all situations.

That may have been it's intended use but that's not how we see it used most of the time. Seems not it is a partisan tool more often than not.

 

[martybegan]

It is something that is a giant anachronism to our system. I’ve never understood why it is there to start with.

Good post.

It is part of the checks and balances system, giving the executive an override of both the judiciary and the legislature in specific instances.

Before trying to get rid of it, first people should try to see what would happen if it was removed.

It would make the Judiciary supreme over the executive in all situations.

That may have been it's intended use but that's not how we see it used most of the time. Seems not it is a partisan tool more often than not.

Still better to have it than not. It gets used annoyingly 1 day out of every 4 to 8 when a president is on his way out. Small price to pay for its value.

 

[jc456]

It is something that is a giant anachronism to our system. I’ve never understood why it is there to start with.

Good post.

It is part of the checks and balances system, giving the executive an override of both the judiciary and the legislature in specific instances.

Before trying to get rid of it, first people should try to see what would happen if it was removed.

It would make the Judiciary supreme over the executive in all situations.

they should actually read up on people like Dinesh and how he was railroaded for a crime that has a penalty of a fine. And yet, cause he made a movie about obammie obammie punished him. yeah, that's the ticket. I listened to him last night, he stated the prosecutor said two years, and if you don't plead guilty, we'll tack on another 5 years for the same crime. so basically fk you you have no way out, either seven years or two. wow. And it's amazing that the left love the game. let's let it happen to them once. just fking once. Martha Stewart the same thing. we have some really evil prosecutors who are in politicians pockets. now that's gangster rule.

 

[jc456]

It is something that is a giant anachronism to our system. I’ve never understood why it is there to start with.

Good post.

It is part of the checks and balances system, giving the executive an override of both the judiciary and the legislature in specific instances.

Before trying to get rid of it, first people should try to see what would happen if it was removed.

It would make the Judiciary supreme over the executive in all situations.

That may have been it's intended use but that's not how we see it used most of the time. Seems not it is a partisan tool more often than not.

Blago is Democrat and Trump may let him out. I find that trump seems to be acting fairly with misuse of sentencing rules.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

It is something that is a giant anachronism to our system. I’ve never understood why it is there to start with.

Good post.

It is part of the checks and balances system, giving the executive an override of both the judiciary and the legislature in specific instances.

Before trying to get rid of it, first people should try to see what would happen if it was removed.

It would make the Judiciary supreme over the executive in all situations.

That may have been it's intended use but that's not how we see it used most of the time. Seems not it is a partisan tool more often than not.

Blago is Democrat and Trump may let him out. I find that trump seems to be acting fairly with misuse of sentencing rules.

I tend to agree with a Blagojevich pardon. I know he did wrong but his sentence was worse than his crime.
The criminal justice system is a mess

 

[jc456]

It is something that is a giant anachronism to our system. I’ve never understood why it is there to start with.

Good post.

It is part of the checks and balances system, giving the executive an override of both the judiciary and the legislature in specific instances.

Before trying to get rid of it, first people should try to see what would happen if it was removed.

It would make the Judiciary supreme over the executive in all situations.

That may have been it's intended use but that's not how we see it used most of the time. Seems not it is a partisan tool more often than not.

Blago is Democrat and Trump may let him out. I find that trump seems to be acting fairly with misuse of sentencing rules.

I tend to agree with a Blagojevich pardon. I know he did wrong but his sentence was worse than his crime.
The criminal justice system is a mess

that's what trump said. I agree.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

It would take an amendment.

The Constitution is clear right now - the Presidents pardon power is absolute and unreviewable.

 

[Andylusion]

Governors & presidents too often get carried away with this crap. Trump seems to be no different.

I don't think that is the solution. I think the solution is elect better people.

Normally I would agree that we should reduce the power of government. But, in this case, we really just need better people in office.

 

[g5000]

Governors & presidents too often get carried away with this crap. Trump seems to be no different.

Every single power given to every single government official has been abused. It's just the way it is. Which is exactly why the power we bestow on imperfect humans should be limited.

As others have said, the power to pardon is an extremely important check on the judiciary.

Even though Trump has made some execrable pardons, or is considering making some, you should notice that the beneficiaries have already served their sentences. So the pardons are nothing more than cheap theater for the rubes.

Because that is what Trump is. He's a cheap gold-plated turd. A TV showman. A modern day P.T. Barnum.

 

[jc456]

Governors & presidents too often get carried away with this crap. Trump seems to be no different.

I don't think that is the solution. I think the solution is elect better people.

Normally I would agree that we should reduce the power of government. But, in this case, we really just need better people in office.

Glad we have trump

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Governors & presidents too often get carried away with this crap. Trump seems to be no different.

But I don't really know how it's possible, and I don't know that it would be consistent. The power of the pardon is itself a check and balance. At least, that's the way it was intended, in my humble opinion. If the legislature gets something wrong, and the courts get it wrong, (i.e. they are correct legally but the end result is somehow unjust because of special circumstances or due to imperfections with man made laws, etc) then the Executive may grant a pardon if necessary and appropriate.

How would you propose pardoning powers be limited to achieve your objectives, but without reducing the ability to be wielded as intended and necessary?

 

[Rosy]

Governors & presidents too often get carried away with this crap. Trump seems to be no different.

And Obooba pardoned hundreds of drug pushers