Time To Get Rid of the Presidential Pardon

[Mikeoxenormous]

A reasonable idea from the OP, even if only an idea, given the hyper-partisanship of the day.

I like that it is coming as a suggestion from a Liberal USMB commenter to Dem9crats … while Biden is in office.

Yes. Joe Biden should not be able to pardon Hunter if he is convicted — and no future Republican should be able to pardon his own criminally convicted supporters involved in Jan. 6th like activities either!

You do know that if Hunter Biden goes down, then the big guy goes down with him.

 

[rightwinger]

So you do have no problem with millions of black babies killed inside or outside the womb?

Like you give a shit about black babies Nancy

 

[Harry Dresden]

It's overwhelmingly far rightwing judges now, clearly political, as you rightly stated.

They're currently acting in a lawless manner, so criminal is an accurate description in that respect.

so marc would it be better if they were overwhelmingly far leftwing?....hey just asking....

 

[MarcATL]

So you do have no problem with millions of black babies killed inside or outside the womb?

What are you talking about?

 

[MarcATL]

so marc would it be better if they were overwhelmingly far leftwing?....hey just asking....

If they were acting in a criminal manner like this iteration of SCOTUS, then of course. Duhhh!

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

You do know that if Hunter Biden goes down, then the big guy goes down with him.

I know nothing of the sort. Biden is about as likely to “go down” to jail as Hillary is likely ever to get “locked up.”

American Presidents have historically escaped such treatment, even war criminals like Bush and his V.P. Cheney.

I don’t even expect Trump to do time. But a good case may be made against Hunter on “tax evasion” or something relatively minor — there could be fines I suppose. I wouldn’t hold my breath expecting him to do time.

That’s just not how things are done in a working and wealthy democratic Republic like the U.S., with 240 years of peaceful transfers of power. Of course Trump didn’t want to accept this tradition. With his “Big Lie” and Jan. 6th antics he even risked bringing our country closer to political chaos and civil war.

So an exception may yet be made for him. Indeed, if he and his supporters continue to act foolishly, terrible things can happen. It won’t be the DNC or Joe Biden who have the final decision, however. They are replaceable as well. It may not even be “the legal system” and the courts. Some MAGAnuts may think the now extremely rightwing Supreme Court will rescue Trump and help their radical right achieve power. They should, in their madness, remember the fate of JFK, and of the Southern Confederacy.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

But one person should not have the ability to simply overturn a jury decision, a judge's sentence

That’s not always the case.

Pardons are sometimes granted after a sentence is served, or the majority of the sentence.

There’s no need to change or eliminate the process – the people need to be more wise and circumspect in whom they elect president.

Otherwise the people are solely responsible for and deserve the bad government they get.

 

[Harry Dresden]

If they were acting in a criminal manner like this iteration of SCOTUS, then of course. Duhhh!

so as long as they are far left its ok to be criminal?.....

 

[BackAgain]

As election season '24 starts to heat up, you'll hear President's talking about getting tough on crime. social issues, and job creation. Three areas where the President has minimal impact if any at all. Otherwise, we'd have little crime, a stable congenial society, and more jobs than we knew what to do with.

One area where the President could actually weigh in with some impact is to start the process to give away the power of the pardon for federal crimes. It would take a constitutional amendment of course. The President could get the ball rolling though.

We still need a pardon because the system can get it wrong. But one person should not have the ability to simply overturn a jury decision, a judge's sentence, and as we saw recently, dangle the pardon as a reward for patronage.

I prefer a three judge panel made of Supreme Court justices to consider pardons. Let it rotate between the second, fifth, and seventh most recent appointees. The President can weigh in just like anyone else if they wish to spend the political capital. Most won't.

Time To Get Rid of the Presidential Pardon​

When candycorn recommends it, you know it’s a bad idea.

 

[MarcATL]

so as long as they are far left its ok to be criminal?.....

You're projecting rather than reading Harry. Try again.

 

[Lastamender]

As it stands now I don't want the Supreme Court doing anything further.

They're pretty much a criminal organization at this point.

They sure are.

 

[Lastamender]

Has Cornpop been pardoned?

 

[Harry Dresden]

You're projecting rather than reading Harry. Try again.

i dont think so marc....i asked you would it be better if they were overwhelmingly far leftwing?.and you said....If they were acting in a criminal manner like this iteration of SCOTUS, then of course......how is that projecting?....you said they can be criminal as long as they are far lefties....

 

[miketx]

As election season '24 starts to heat up, you'll hear President's talking about getting tough on crime. social issues, and job creation. Three areas where the President has minimal impact if any at all. Otherwise, we'd have little crime, a stable congenial society, and more jobs than we knew what to do with.

One area where the President could actually weigh in with some impact is to start the process to give away the power of the pardon for federal crimes. It would take a constitutional amendment of course. The President could get the ball rolling though.

We still need a pardon because the system can get it wrong. But one person should not have the ability to simply overturn a jury decision, a judge's sentence, and as we saw recently, dangle the pardon as a reward for patronage.

I prefer a three judge panel made of Supreme Court justices to consider pardons. Let it rotate between the second, fifth, and seventh most recent appointees. The President can weigh in just like anyone else if they wish to spend the political capital. Most won't.

As it stands now I don't want the Supreme Court doing anything further.

They're pretty much a criminal organization at this point.

The Supreme Court already has the power to overturn a court decision

Omg the fucking irony

Maybe he can share a cell with Jared Kushner

I would have you whimpering like a Sissy Girl Nancy

Ridiculous. I think they are less and less legitimate given that they are clearly a political body....but criminal? Nope.

This is why you stagger which justices would sit on the pardon panel. It would change with ever appointee.

Actually they don't. They can grant a stay of execution and they can weigh in if civil rights were not observed.

It's overwhelmingly far rightwing judges now, clearly political, as you rightly stated.

They're currently acting in a lawless manner, so criminal is an accurate description in that respect.

Nonsense.

A reasonable idea from the OP, even if only an idea, given the hyper-partisanship of the day.

I like that it is coming as a suggestion from a Liberal USMB commenter to Dem9crats … while Biden is in office.

Yes. Joe Biden should not be able to pardon Hunter if he is convicted — and no future Republican should be able to pardon his own criminally convicted supporters involved in Jan. 6th like activities either!

Like you give a shit about black babies Nancy

What are you talking about?

If they were acting in a criminal manner like this iteration of SCOTUS, then of course. Duhhh!

I know nothing of the sort. Biden is about as likely to “go down” to jail as Hillary is likely ever to get “locked up.”

American Presidents have historically escaped such treatment, even war criminals like Bush and his V.P. Cheney.

I don’t even expect Trump to do time. But a good case may be made against Hunter on “tax evasion” or something relatively minor — there could be fines I suppose. I wouldn’t hold my breath expecting him to do time.

That’s just not how things are done in a working and wealthy democratic Republic like the U.S., with 240 years of peaceful transfers of power. Of course Trump didn’t want to accept this tradition. With his “Big Lie” and Jan. 6th antics he even risked bringing our country closer to political chaos and civil war.

So an exception may yet be made for him. Indeed, if he and his supporters continue to act foolishly, terrible things can happen. It won’t be the DNC or Joe Biden who have the final decision, however. They are replaceable as well. It may not even be “the legal system” and the courts. Some MAGAnuts may think the now extremely rightwing Supreme Court will rescue Trump and help their radical right achieve power. They should, in their madness, remember the fate of JFK, and of the Southern Confederacy.

That’s not always the case.

Pardons are sometimes granted after a sentence is served, or the majority of the sentence.

There’s no need to change or eliminate the process – the people need to be more wise and circumspect in whom they elect president.

Otherwise the people are solely responsible for and deserve the bad government they get.

You're projecting rather than reading Harry. Try again.

 

[candycorn]

That’s not always the case.

Pardons are sometimes granted after a sentence is served, or the majority of the sentence.

There’s no need to change or eliminate the process – the people need to be more wise and circumspect in whom they elect president.

Otherwise the people are solely responsible for and deserve the bad government they get.

Presidents of both major political parties have issued pardons to people they know/supporters. This had lead to an actual fractured justice system to where the convicted while connected spend less time in jail (if any at all) for federal and thereby assumingly more serious crimes.

As for having this be an election issue, it's crazy that Presidents were endowed with this power to begin with. We have a court system by which you are guaranteed a fair trial heard by a jury of your peers. It is their decision that should carry the day...not the fact that you may be in the good graces of the President.

Again, we would still have pardons available to those who are victims of a true miscarriage of justice but it would be rendered by a subset of the justices of the supreme court and it would remove the likelihood that the convicted will be issued a get out of jail free card based on knowing those who may grant amnesty.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Presidents of both major political parties have issued pardons to people they know/supporters. This had lead to an actual fractured justice system to where the convicted while connected spend less time in jail (if any at all) for federal and thereby assumingly more serious crimes.

As for having this be an election issue, it's crazy that Presidents were endowed with this power to begin with. We have a court system by which you are guaranteed a fair trial heard by a jury of your peers. It is their decision that should carry the day...not the fact that you may be in the good graces of the President.

Again, we would still have pardons available to those who are victims of a true miscarriage of justice but it would be rendered by a subset of the justices of the supreme court and it would remove the likelihood that the convicted will be issued a get out of jail free card based on knowing those who may grant amnesty.

You’ve got a separation of powers problem – the power to pardon is the sole purview of the executive, not the judiciary.

Indeed, it was the intent of the Framers that the judiciary not have the power to pardon.

And understandably, you’re attempting address the failings of the political process via Constitutional amendment where the problem isn’t the process; rather, it’s the apathy and abdication of the people of their responsibility to participate in the process, allowing special interests to take advantage of the political vacuum.

If you want to amend the Constitution to allow for real and substantive political reform, amend the Constitution rendering Citizens United null and void.

 

[Missourian]

I would have you whimpering like a Sissy Girl Nancy

I heard you were in good shape for the shape you're in.

I mean... round is a shape.

 

[Winco]

Yes, please do, when Hunter Biden goes to jail for tax fraud charges, lying on a federal weapons form, and doing illicit drugs while selling his fathers name to China and Ukraine, no presidential pardon for his sorry ass...

You got Hunter now
Seriously, this time you really got him.

LOOLOLLL

 

[candycorn]

You’ve got a separation of powers problem – the power to pardon is the sole purview of the executive, not the judiciary.

True. That was set up in Article II.

Indeed, it was the intent of the Framers that the judiciary not have the power to pardon.

Yeah...they also didn't intend for the President to dangle pardons in return for patronage, political favors, or just because the President knows and likes the accused. This is one of the areas where the framers got it wrong. If the intent was to correct errors made by the judicial process, having a planter or a military general as the person making that determination is rather silly....why not ask the groundskeeper at the white house to weigh in on where to send troops? I prefer to have legal scholars looking to see where legal missteps may have been made.

There is an argument to be made for the other side of that argument of course. That is what the appeals process is for. However, that same argument also highlights the inexplicably daft inclusion of a pardon being included in Article II to start with. If the appeals process didn't overturn the conviction and there wasn't a clear and present miscarriage of justice based on race or some other outside factor...what business is it of the Executive to singularly overturn the verdict of a jury and the findings of appeals court judges who said everything was on the up and up.

And understandably, you’re attempting address the failings of the political process via Constitutional amendment where the problem isn’t the process; rather, it’s the apathy and abdication of the people of their responsibility to participate in the process, allowing special interests to take advantage of the political vacuum.

I think you're overstating the case there a bit. Granting pardons should be about 1/1000th of a President's job. This isn't something that the average voter takes into account when casting a ballot. "Gee, will this gal I'm voting for grant a pardon to someone?" A) Because the average voter doesn't know anyone doing time for a federal crime and B) often times because of the crime not having taken place or coming to light before casting the ballot.

If you want to amend the Constitution to allow for real and substantive political reform, amend the Constitution rendering Citizens United null and void.

Different topic all together.

 

[lennypartiv]

I prefer a three judge panel made of Supreme Court justices to consider pardons. Let it rotate between the second, fifth, and seventh most recent appointees. The President can weigh in just like anyone else if they wish to spend the political capital. Most won't.

How about the president still give pardons, but the House can block pardons with a 60% vote?