- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or # to comment.
Republicunts have lost their goddamned minds. That this is seen as necessary, even at the margins, means the Republic is fucking lost. All for an orange traitor shitcunt.
I can understand that a populist leader could create an authoritarian state in America, but I’m still in disbelief that it’s this guy who they chose to be their god emperor, to be immune from all laws and criticism, to save them from the “elite”.
I mean, this guy?
The overweight geriatric dementia-addled billionaire (who wasn’t even that until he grifted his way there last presidency), who is the epitome of the “elite asshole” stereotype Fox News was demonizing for decades before 2015, a New York silver-spoon-sucking, sell-your-mother-for-a-nickel elitist who couldn’t even be a successful used car salesman?
This guy is the one?
I mean, c’mon, America. Maybe we don’t deserve the top shelf stuff, but this is some serious hangover-inducing self-hating well-liquor-binge level of bad judgement.
Pardons should go away.
Exactly … why bother with a complicated justice system when one person can step in to ignore the entire process. The fact that one individual can pardon others means that it is an incomplete and flawed system.
It was originally created as a check / balance. But now that the legislature is completely neutered to hold the executive branch accountable, and the supreme court has made itself subservient to the executive, we’re just… You know… Fucked.
They can only ignore it in one direction
The US constitution should go away. It’s short-sighted and completely anachronistic.
I mean it should be updated that’s for damn sure. But the average person seems to think that it is sacrosanct despite the people who wrote it saying otherwise.
It should be rewritten completely. But we Americans are too simple a people to take on the task.
Given who’s in charge of most states at the moment, a rewrite probably isn’t going to turn out very well.
You’re right and we’re not that far from the absolute chaos that will come with a new Constitutional Convention.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
If two thirds of the state legislatures call for it, there will be a new convention to propose amendments to the constitution. Currently, there are four groups pushing states for a new constitutional convention; the Balanced Budget Amendment campaign, the Convention of States campaign, the Wolf-PAC campaign, and the term limits campaign. These groups have it total convinced 28 states to call for it. They need just six more states. It could happen during Trump’s term because the right has been pushing for one for a long time. Here’s why it would be a mess.
But here’s the catch: there are absolutely no rules for an Article V Convention outlined in the Constitution.
That means the group of people convening to rewrite our Constitution could be totally unelected and unaccountable. There is nothing that could limit the convention to a single issue, so the delegates could write amendments that revoke any of our most cherished rights – like our right to peaceful protest, our freedom of religion, or our right to privacy. There are also no rules preventing corporations from pouring money into the convention to ensure they get their way.
In short, an Article V Convention would be a disaster. It would lead to long and costly legal battles, uncertainty about how our democracy functions, and likely economic instability.
And then what? A vacuum gets filled by something else. We do need to reexamine some of the archaic ideas just like its writers thought we should and would. It’s short-sighted because we’ve hung onto old words for so long we can’t even agree on what they mean. Jefferson has some good quotes on how expecting laws then to apply to a future society is ridiculous. And yet here we are…
And then we re-write the thing to include pretty sensible constraints, such as 20-year terms for SC justices, proportional representation in the Senate, no fucking assault weapons outside of the military and perhaps law enforcement, etc.
Grant all 50 states independence. Let them reemerge into whatever new nation or nations the individual states want to form.
Dissolve the states.
Can my family and I get a pardon too while you’re at it, Mr. President? You know something that’s about to go down that we don’t?
He knows what the majority of people aren’t ready to accept, which is that we’ve functionally become a dictatorship for at least the next 2 years. Republicans have already proven they’ll harm any family they can reach with the “conversation” about whether Jill should be allowed to be called a Dr. since she has a PhD and not an MD. The charging and excessive sentencing of Hunter. Not to mention those who stand for justice like Letitia or Fani.
My issue is this makes it quite likely that in the possibility of a return to democratic control in 2028 that Trump will pardon his families and friends actual crimes since the precedent has been set (Though he’d probably do so anyway at least for Ivanka).
He was pardoning corrupt politicians and family at the end of his last term, “the precedent” being set already happened and that ship sailed a long time ago. Biden didn’t do anything new that his political rival and replacement hasn’t already done.
“The issuance of these pardons should not be mistaken as an acknowledgment that they engaged in any wrongdoing, nor should acceptance be misconstrued as an admission of guilt for any offense.”
Might want to check out Burdick v US.
SCOTUS: it depends. Are we talking about a democrat or republican?
I don’t think that’s a settled matter.
From the Wikipedia article about Burdick:
Although the Supreme Court’s opinion stated that a pardon carries “an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it,” this was part of the Court’s dictum for the case. Whether the acceptance of a pardon constitutes an admission of guilt by the recipient is disputed. In Lorance v. Commandant, USDB (2021) the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that “there is no confession and Lorance does not otherwise lose his right to petition for habeas corpus relief for his court-martial conviction and sentence. The case was remanded for further action not inconsistent with the court’s opinion.”
How come ole Joe didn’t pardon all the democrats in America if we wanted to save people from the wrath of Trump? He had the constitutional power to do it after all…
He’s been clear that he never wanted to drop out of the race, he probably isn’t too happy with Democrats either
Because the pardons have to either, name individuals, or specify a specific group of people, like “Members of the Jan 6 Commitee” or “Any Persons who have avoided the conscription pertaining to the Vietnam War.”
Something like “All Registered Democrats” would be too broad and this 6-3 conservative supreme court would definite step in and void it.
Who says a specific group of people can’t be, “All Americans?” There’s nothing in the Constitution that provides limits on the pardon power. In theory, if they wanted to, a president could issue a pardon for every American for every violation of federal law ever committed.
There’s nothing in the Constitution that provides limits on the pardon power.
Well, the constitution never explicitly gave the supreme court the power of judicial review, but they just grabbed that power and everyone in government just rolled with it.
Similarly, the supreme court could rule that if a pardon is “too broad” then its not valid. And then trump just take that ruling and say “hey look, the supreme court says the pardons are invalid, ARREST THE DEMS!”
Edit: And also, if Biden did that, he could inadvertently free people who are rightfully convicted of violent crimes. Think of all the mass shooters in prison right now. And also it wouldn’t matter anyways. Being LGBT is still on the way of getting outlawed in the future. Political dissent can still be suppressed via a weaponized DoJ. Pardons don’t apply to the future
Of course there could be rulings on anything. But you’re inventing the “specificity” argument from whole cloth. Historically, there has never been any ruling establishing such limits on presidential pardons. And it’s not even on the radar of potential rulings circulating in right-wing circles. There are a lot of dubious legal theories that right wingers have proposed, such as creative interpretations to get around birthright citizenship. But there aren’t conservative legal scholars out there arguing that the pardoning power should be redefined.
The court could also just straight-up rule various demographic groups to be illegal and worthy of imprisonment without trial. There’s really no point on worrying about purely hypothetical rulings that have no evidence that they are even being considered.
The is an invention entirely of your own creation.
