- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Presidential pardons should not be allowed any longer.....
Posted on 12/3/24 at 12:24 pm to wackatimesthree
Posted on 12/3/24 at 12:24 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
Can you name the last person unjustly harmed that the President has pardoned? You might literally have to go back to Civil War times to find one. They're all just political Ruling Class favors as far as I can see.
Trump pardoned Alice Marie Johnson in 2018. While she wasn't entirely innocent, she was harshly punished and Trump recognized that.
1
Posted on 12/3/24 at 12:34 pm to SidewalkDawg
quote:
While she wasn't entirely innocent
Depending upon whom you ask, she wasn't innocent at all. She was convicted as a chief player in a multi-million dollar cocaine trafficking ring with direct ties to Columbian cartels.
That was nothing more than a political move on Trump's part to show that he likes black people. The ACLU made enough noise about how black people are over-sentenced and Trump took that bait.
Try again.
Posted on 12/3/24 at 12:40 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
Try again.
Well, if you don't like her pardon, then perhaps the Jan 6 prisoners would fit the bill, assuming Trump actually follows through on those pardons.
Posted on 12/3/24 at 12:42 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Yes, I didn't vote for either major party's candidate for President, and due to the religious requirements that I have.
I wouldn't say that's necessarily a flaw in my plan as much as it is a flaw in how this nation as a whole vets candidates. We, as a nation, tend to vote based on pragmatic reasons with not much of a care for moral character. Instead of voting for candidates, we more and more vote against the other party and their candidate, utilizing the "lesser of two evils" approach most of the time (at least that's been my experience over the years).
If our nation doesn't care about more individual moral character, that's a problem with our nation. We should care about morality. If we aren't willing to do what is right instead of what is pragmatic, then of course we're going to continue to get candidates who are willing to abuse their authority and act as tyrants.
The power of the President to pardon is a Constitutional power, so if we are concerned about the Constitution not being sufficient because of the morality of the leaders (or the people), then certainly we should look to change it. However, another approach could be to seek better quality candidates and to be committed as a party to pushing moral reform in this country.
I think you're missing my point, though.
You're arguing that there's nothing wrong with our Constitution, we just need to do a better job vetting candidates.
Then you go on to explain exactly why that isn't going to happen while I am agreeing with you in a parallel narrative, pointing out that by your own theory you already can't find someone to vote for who can win.
And I reminding you that one of the guys who wrote said Constitution made it clear that it will only work with a virtuous (and religious) people.
It doesn't work for our nation as it currently is.
Sure, the better solution is for the nation to become virtuous. But that's not going to happen.
So the intelligent thing to do is to conclude that we may need to modify some things to account for Adam's point. I'm not talking about throwing it out wholesale. But I think it's clear that Biden just proved that handling an unlimited pardon power is now beyond our moral capacity to wield responsibly. (And not just Biden, but most people responding to it.)
Posted on 12/3/24 at 12:45 pm to SidewalkDawg
quote:
assuming Trump actually follows through on those pardons.
We'll talk about those when and if they happen.
The point remains.
The power is wholesale not used for the purpose for which it was intended.
It needs to be revisited and at least limited. I can't think of many Constitutional rights or powers that don't eventually apply to some specific situations that make people think, "Wait a minute, we need some limits on this thing."
IMO we just bumped up against that circumstance with regard to presidential pardons.
Posted on 12/3/24 at 12:46 pm to oldskule
quote:
It is against everything we preach about the judicial system....
Do the crime, pay the time!
They 100% should not be allowed for politcians, cabinet members, or other people directly connected to or under the direction of any given administration.
Posted on 12/3/24 at 12:51 pm to oldskule
i’m dying to know….
when the news that Biden was giving Hunter a blanket pardon yesterday, did SFP or boosie pop in to explain why it isn’t a big deal and/or how there legal precedence to do so?
when the news that Biden was giving Hunter a blanket pardon yesterday, did SFP or boosie pop in to explain why it isn’t a big deal and/or how there legal precedence to do so?
Posted on 12/3/24 at 12:56 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
That's not what I asked you.
Try again.
Yes it is. Here is your comment:
quote:
So you concur that doing so wouldn't solve the ability of the pardon to be abused, since there would still be crimes for which it could be abused.
Here is my response:
quote:
No, I don't agree with removing the pardon
There's nothing more for me to say. I answered your question. I don't view it as a "problem" that pardons can be used in this way. The "problem" is the expansion of the federal government to the point that pardons cover far more things than they should.
Posted on 12/3/24 at 1:02 pm to oldskule
In the grand scheme, this does far more to damage the party of a president that hands out a pardon like this one. I am happy to let Hunter go free for the sake of the massive damage it does to the democrats with the general voting public.
This pardon won't stop the investigation and Hunter no longer having 5th protection will actually make the investigation that much easier. Exposing the corruption AND knowing that the Democrat president guaranteed it won't go punished is not at all good for that party.
It does more good for the country if he does go free in this instance.
This pardon won't stop the investigation and Hunter no longer having 5th protection will actually make the investigation that much easier. Exposing the corruption AND knowing that the Democrat president guaranteed it won't go punished is not at all good for that party.
It does more good for the country if he does go free in this instance.
Posted on 12/3/24 at 1:06 pm to oldskule
It should at least require the approval of a simple majority in the House, Senate or both. Departing Presidents have no skin in the game. At least put people on the record for their approval.
Posted on 12/3/24 at 1:09 pm to PeleofAnalytics
quote:
This pardon won't stop the investigation and Hunter no longer having 5th protection will actually make the investigation that much easier.
Biden will pardon his whole family and business associates plus a host of Democrat leaders on his last day.
Maybe he is trying to burn the whole thing down.
Posted on 12/3/24 at 1:13 pm to POTUS2024
quote:Exactly. What if our judges start putting people in jail for their political opinions?
Yeah, let's just leave zero recourse for a runaway judiciary.
I could get behind an amendment that requires a majority of the US Senate to approve the pardon.
Posted on 12/3/24 at 1:19 pm to ChineseBandit58
quote:
Biden will pardon his whole family and business associates plus a host of Democrat leaders on his last day.
Maybe he is trying to burn the whole thing down.
If the public gets to see behind the curtain and are aware of how corrupt those Democrats are? The fact that they are clearly not going to be punished makes it so so much worse for the entire party that screamed "no one is above the law" for the past several years.
Sign me up for that shite show. Having them all walk is probably much better for the country in the long run.
Posted on 12/3/24 at 1:24 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
So you concur that doing so [reducing the number of federal crimes] wouldn't solve the ability of the pardon to be abused, since there would still be crimes for which it could be abused.
I don't think I can help with that severe a degree of a lack of reading comprehension, but I will give it one more shot.
In the above text that YOU quoted, I clearly do not advocate for or address removing the pardon. In that text I address your non-sequitur "solution" for abusing the pardon, which simple logic impeaches, and which I attempt to give you the opportunity to acknowledge.
quote:
No, I don't agree with removing the pardon
Whether you agreed with removing the pardon was not the question. The question was (paraphrased), "Are you ready to admit your obvious error in elementary logic yet?"
The answer was "no," but you attempted to give that answer by obfuscating.
quote:
I answered your question.
Only by the metrics I just posted above did you answer my underlying question.
quote:
I don't view it as a "problem" that pardons can be used in this way.
Then why did you offer your "solution?" That's what you called it.
Surely you're not so bereft of reasoning ability that you can't see that you have now set up a self-refuting set of conditions, are you?
If the federal pardon ability is not a problem, then why would you need to do anything at all to address it?
I tired to agree with you that having too many federal laws is a problem in and of itself, but you weren't o.k. with that. Nope, it had to be a problem specifically related to presidential pardons.
So if there is no problem with presidential pardons "being used in that way," then why should we reduce the number of federal laws? What problem would that be proposed to solve? The one that you say doesn't exist?
Posted on 12/3/24 at 1:25 pm to oldskule
No pardons to self or family members
Posted on 12/3/24 at 1:28 pm to Penrod
quote:
What if our judges start putting people in jail for their political opinions?
They already have, and the POTUS having the ability to pardon didn't help with it.
We'll see what happens when Daddy gets back in the WH, but that is a problem that has to be fixed way beyond simply maintaining presidential pardon power.
The DOJ needs to start looking into malicious prosecution charges.
Posted on 12/3/24 at 1:31 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
wackatimesthree
Your refusal to accept my response does not make my response less legitimate. My solution is valid, and would work. Thank goodness we're getting a president who wants to reduce the size of the federal government. If he's successful, hopefully pardons won't cover such a wide array of crimes moving forward.
Posted on 12/3/24 at 3:46 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:I could be. Apologies if I am not following.
I think you're missing my point, though.
quote:Correct, at least in this respect. I don't think Presidential pardon power is necessarily wrong. Like all powers, it can be abused, and especially when the President is corrupt.
You're arguing that there's nothing wrong with our Constitution, we just need to do a better job vetting candidates.
quote:Yes, but my point was actually that instead of trying to change the Constitution, we as a people should have higher standards for the representatives that we vote for. Right now we just pick the better of the bad options and we will continue to do so because the party's know we will keep doing it.
Then you go on to explain exactly why that isn't going to happen while I am agreeing with you in a parallel narrative, pointing out that by your own theory you already can't find someone to vote for who can win.
quote:I agree with that, which is why I'm advocating for our nation to be more virtuous and demand virtue from our representatives.
And I reminding you that one of the guys who wrote said Constitution made it clear that it will only work with a virtuous (and religious) people.
It doesn't work for our nation as it currently is.
quote:Perhaps, and perhaps not. We certainly aren't trying to make this nation more virtuous, and that's the big problem that I have. The Democrats are actually pushing their immoral worldview; they are proselytizing and making converts. If they weren't so impatient, they'd probably never lose an election ever again (except by God's restraining grace). The Republicans, on the other hand, are not matching the Democrats in the culture war. The GOP is on the defensive and only win when the left shoots themselves in the foot by going too far too fast.
Sure, the better solution is for the nation to become virtuous. But that's not going to happen.
quote:The same thing is said by the left when it comes to the 1st and 2nd amendments, too. They think we're too irresponsible with speech and guns as a people to have such freedoms any longer, but more regulation is needed.
So the intelligent thing to do is to conclude that we may need to modify some things to account for Adam's point. I'm not talking about throwing it out wholesale. But I think it's clear that Biden just proved that handling an unlimited pardon power is now beyond our moral capacity to wield responsibly. (And not just Biden, but most people responding to it.)
I'm more concerned with the root of the problem rather than the fruit of it.
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News