Should we get rid of the Presidential Pardon

[BackAgain]

Our Founders and the Framers understood that there could be a serious danger of the misuse of the powers of government to punish opposition. It’s almost as if they had foreseen the current insidiousness of the Democrap Party.

It wouldn’t be proper for the party currently in power to engage in such invalid political persecution, either. The power of the pardon stands against any such abuse of government powers.

(By the way. Yes it l, too, can be misused. I’d even agree that it has been misused on more than one occasion. But those things don’t lead to the irrational termination of that Constitutional provision.)

 

[BackAgain]

^ above we see cappycorn’s ability to discuss anything, at its most elevated level.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Biden pardoned his punk son.... I understand why he did it but the harsh reality is that a President has a responsibility higher than the personal. Nothing says...”well, yeah, some are above the law” more than that. Using the blob as a moral barometer is rather dubious, don’t you think?

I to, understand why Biden did what he did.
I wish he wouldn't have.
That circus of hypocrisy would STILL be going on.
Trump and his cult have attacked Biden, Obama and both Clintons.

 

[candycorn]

View attachment 1261588
^ above we see cappycorn’s ability to discuss anything, at its most elevated level.

Trump has pardoned 1700 people...1700. At least one of which went on to rape 2 kids. You didn’t say a thing about it your concern is the Democrats. So yes...I find your post to be hilarious.

 

[Zincwarrior]

It would require a Constitutional Amendment. I imagine going forward, that as a matter of course, the exiting President will pardon pretty much their entire administration before leaving.

 

[candycorn]

It would require a Constitutional Amendment. I imagine going forward, that as a matter of course, the exiting President will pardon pretty much their entire administration before leaving.

Right...that is why I think it needs to be implemented at a time in the future...2032, 2036...etc... when nobody knows who will be the President or the three members of the SCOTUS who would be involved.

 

[22lcidw]

What appeals board?

You mean the 3 judge panel I was talking about?

That would end up corrupted. Look at the lower judges making legislative policy on political agendas not approved of.

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

I asked the question earlier but this time I put in a poll. And for the sake of this poll, a pardon and clemency is being considered to be the same thing.

I say yes. Do so and replace it by a 3 judge panel. The panel would consist of judges selected by seniority.

-The Chief Justice
-The 3rd most senior Justice (who isn't the Chief Justice)
-The most junior Justice (who isn't the Chief Justice)

Give the panel total carte blanche to interview the petitioner, the judge of the trial who sentenced her or him, the prosecutor, the defense attorney, witnesses etc... Surrender all evidence to the panel for review. Give it a thorough scouring back and fourth under the intense glare of suspicion from the court. Then vote. If 2 out of 3 vote to pardon, they get a pardon. Have it take effect in 2032 or 2036 when nobody today knows what the make up of the court will be and nobody knows who the President will be.

Presidential behavior in this area by presidents of both major political parties has been abysmal and pardons are handed out to those who are well connected, clearly in the wrong, and family members like in the case of Joe Biden.

Cult members voting No because a Democrat isn’t president.

 

[BackAgain]

I to, understand why Biden did what he did.
I wish he wouldn't have.
That circus of hypocrisy would STILL be going on.
Trump and his cult have attacked Biden, Obama and both Clintons.

You’re retarded. Biden and his filthy ilk started the lawfare. And everyone knows it. You just aren’t capable of being honest enough to admit it.

The balance of your post is even more dishonest of you.

 

[BackAgain]

Cult members voting No because a Democrat isn’t president.

Wrong as always, lib.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

You’re retarded. Biden and his filthy ilk started the lawfare.

You, as usual, are FOS.

And everyone knows it. You just aren’t capable of being honest enough to admit it.

AND you're delusional.

The balance of your post is even more dishonest of you.

Trump cult were found guilty of crimes and treason.

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

You’re retarded. Biden and his filthy ilk started the lawfare. And everyone knows it. You just aren’t capable of being honest enough to admit it.

The balance of your post is even more dishonest of you.

Now, he’s gonna tell us he would’ve voted for keeping pardons if Biden was president.

 

[Independent thinker]

I asked the question earlier but this time I put in a poll. And for the sake of this poll, a pardon and clemency is being considered to be the same thing.

I say yes. Do so and replace it by a 3 judge panel. The panel would consist of judges selected by seniority.

-The Chief Justice
-The 3rd most senior Justice (who isn't the Chief Justice)
-The most junior Justice (who isn't the Chief Justice)

Give the panel total carte blanche to interview the petitioner, the judge of the trial who sentenced her or him, the prosecutor, the defense attorney, witnesses etc... Surrender all evidence to the panel for review. Give it a thorough scouring back and fourth under the intense glare of suspicion from the court. Then vote. If 2 out of 3 vote to pardon, they get a pardon. Have it take effect in 2032 or 2036 when nobody today knows what the make up of the court will be and nobody knows who the President will be.

Presidential behavior in this area by presidents of both major political parties has been abysmal and pardons are handed out to those who are well connected, clearly in the wrong, and family members like in the case of Joe Biden.

It is way overused. While I'm not against independent judges who are not biased from either side, I would mainly just limit the number of pardons a president can give in one year to a small number, like maybe 12 total for each year, which would make it so that the president would have to use them wisely.

And, since we're on the subject, I would abandon the autopen altogether. It's only used because it's too hard and time consuming for the president to sign hundreds of documents. So, outlaw the autopen so the president has to indiviually sign everything because there shouldn't be so many things to sign that an autopen is needed.

 

[BackAgain]

View attachment 1261647
Now, he’s gonna tell us he would’ve voted for keeping pardons if Biden was president.

When the half-baked Potato was the President, I never argued against the existence of the pardon, you absolutely dishonest asshole, Lib.

That you can’t imagine anybody being consistent is merely a reflection of how lackluster your brain is.

A related point or two: I don’t believe that there is any rational support for anyone using the Presidential autopen to “sign” pardons. (We can’t even establish that it was President Potato who did it).

I also criticized President Trump for pardoning ALL of the J6 defendants, because I still maintain that it shouldn’t have been used to the benefit of any such defendant who assaulted any law enforcement officers or anybody else that day.

So, it is clear that your commentary is false and baseless. You don’t seem to be mentally capable of distinguishing between a criticism of how (or for whom) a pardon is granted — on the one hand — and support of the Constitutional pardon authority of our Presidents — on the other hand.

You remain a very shallow and ignorant (as well as a perpetually dishonest) shitlib, Shitlib from (?) Georgia,

 

[egp320i]

It is possible that societal moods can change over time. Like if you got 60 years for trafficking a giant amount of pot in the 1970's...should you still be in prison for that given that it is legal in a lot of states and its been knocked down to a different drug class?

I can see the need for a pardon in cases like this; cases where the juries simply get it wrong...or instances that were simple prosecutorial misconduct.




Its not exactly special treatment in every case but it's been special treatment in enough cases...over a long enough period of time to where it's definitely time to look at what we're doing here.

Has to be used in certain situations, political prisoner, etc
not a blanket get out of jail free card like monopoly

 

[candycorn]

Has to be used in certain situations, political prisoner, etc
not a blanket get out of jail free card like monopoly

I think the pardoning of draft dodgers for VietNam given the truths discovered in the Pentagon Papers was justified. Lincoln pardoned a bunch of desserters too if memory serves.

But yeah...very specific circumstances.

I’m trying to avoid talking about our current president but it’s the only example I can think of where a candidate for President stated, “I am you retribution” (CPAC 3/23)...I think it is appropriate to shield those on whom “retribution” would be carried out if you’re confident (and when its obvious) that there was no crime committed.

 

[egp320i]

I think the pardoning of draft dodgers for VietNam given the truths discovered in the Pentagon Papers was justified. Lincoln pardoned a bunch of desserters too if memory serves.

But yeah...very specific circumstances.

I’m trying to avoid talking about our current president but it’s the only example I can think of where a candidate for President stated, “I am you retribution” (CPAC 3/23)...I think it is appropriate to shield those on whom “retribution” would be carried out if you’re confident (and when its obvious) that there was no crime committed.

SC would need to get involved to see if the pardon is justified but that runs on party lines too

SC would probably state, we are busy to bother examining the evidence for one person, that is
not our job and it's not unless it's constitutional based

 

[candycorn]

SC would need to get involved to see if the pardon is justified but that runs on party lines too

Well, that is just the reality of the situation. Which is why I have it being very specific justices based on seniority. Two of the three memebers will change with every new justice who is added to the bench so you may get 3 appointed by Republicans (which is what i think it would be right now), 3 appointed by democrats, or any other possible combination. The point is that they are legal scholars and also that most of the cases are not going to be political in nature.

SC would probably state, we are busy to bother examining the evidence for one person, that is
not our job and it's not unless it's constitutional based

Well yeah, it would have to be constitutionally based. Its all an academic exercise and I cannot imagine any President saying, “please take power away from me” regardless of whom they are. So it will never happen.

That doesn’t excuse the fact that I think almost everyone can agree on--what we have now isn’t what the framers intended the pardon to be used for.