- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: Trump declares Biden’s pardons as VOID bc they were done by autopen
Posted on 3/17/25 at 2:52 pm to David Fellows
Posted on 3/17/25 at 2:52 pm to David Fellows
quote:Uhh, it's literally what he said...you may want to read it again
No he didn't.
Read it again.
0
Posted on 3/17/25 at 2:53 pm to BigBinBR
quote:
We’ve been told by one side for years that machine guns and large capacity magazines weren’t included in the constitution and the 2nd amendment should be limited to muskets.
Now that same side
Posted on 3/17/25 at 2:54 pm to shinerfan
quote:
Pre-emptive pardons are one thing but blanket pardons for unnamed offences are clearly not what the Founders intended.
Especially with SCOTUS stating that acceptance of a pardon is a tacit implication of guilt. (Burdick v. United States 1915)
This post was edited on 3/17/25 at 2:56 pm
Posted on 3/17/25 at 2:59 pm to rebeloke
quote:This was just part of the case litigation, this was not the final binding rule, so this is incorrect.
In the United States, accepting a pardon is an admission to the crime. In Burdick_v._United_States, the majority opinion stated that a pardon "carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it."
I certainly agree in general, but it's not the case legally in the US.
Posted on 3/17/25 at 3:00 pm to LSUAngelHere1
if this hold up that will be crazy
Posted on 3/17/25 at 3:00 pm to VoxDawg
quote:
acceptance of a pardon
Can you refuse a pardon? Obviously you can ask to not be pardoned but if the President pardons you anyway can you refuse? Has it it been done? (It would be easy to say you don't want a pardon but does the accused ever really not want a pardon?)
Posted on 3/17/25 at 3:01 pm to LSUAngelHere1
Trump, once again, trolls the universe and has people talking about Biden's ineptness and the validity of his pardons and also his actions as President.
Meanwhile, once again, fools fall into the trap and argue the merits of his call to action.
Meanwhile, once again, fools fall into the trap and argue the merits of his call to action.
Posted on 3/17/25 at 3:02 pm to northshorebamaman
But none of the previous presidents were bumbling idiots ridden with Dementia
Posted on 3/17/25 at 3:05 pm to shinerfan
quote:
Can you refuse a pardon?
I believe those inmates tried to refuse Biden's pardon
I think it's still being litigated
That article cites a case
Biddle v. Perovich, 274 U.S. 480 (1927)
.
quote:
A pardon in our days is not a private act of grace from an individual happening to possess power. It is a part of the Constitutional scheme. When granted, it is the determination of the ultimate authority that the public welfare will be better served by inflicting less than what the judgment fixed. See Ex parte Grossman, 267 U. S. 87, 267 U. S. 120-121. Just as the original punishment would be imposed without regard to the prisoner's consent and in the teeth of his will, whether he liked it or not, the public welfare, not his consent, determines what shall be done. So far as a pardon legitimately cuts down a penalty, it affects the judgment imposing it. No one doubts that a reduction of the term of an imprisonment or the amount of a fine would limit the sentence effectively, on the one side, and, on the other, would leave the reduced term or fine valid and to be enforced, and that the convict's consent is not required.
quote:
The opposite answer would permit the President to decide that justice requires the diminution of a term or a fine without consulting the convict, but would deprive him of the power in the most important cases and require him to permit an execution which he had decided ought not to take place unless the change is agreed to by one who on no sound principle ought to have any voice in what the law should do for the welfare of the whole. We are of opinion that the reasoning of Burdick v. United States, 236 U. S. 79, is not to be extended to the present case. The other questions certified become immaterial as we answer the first question: Yes.
This post was edited on 3/17/25 at 3:07 pm
Posted on 3/17/25 at 3:06 pm to shinerfan
Grok says:
quote:
The Supreme Court has addressed the relationship between accepting a presidential pardon and presumed guilt in several key cases, with the most notable discussion occurring in Burdick v. United States (1915). In this case, the Court stated that a pardon "carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it." This language suggests that a pardon implies the recipient has committed an offense, and accepting it can be seen as an acknowledgment of that guilt. The case involved George Burdick, a newspaper editor who refused to testify before a grand jury, invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, even after being offered a pardon by President Woodrow Wilson. The Court ruled that Burdick could reject the pardon, emphasizing that acceptance is necessary for it to take effect, and highlighted the potential stigma of guilt tied to accepting it.
However, this statement in Burdick was part of the Court's broader reasoning (often considered dicta, or non-binding commentary) rather than the central holding, which focused on the right to refuse a pardon. The idea that acceptance inherently constitutes a legal confession of guilt has been debated and clarified in later cases. For instance, in United States v. Wilson (1833), the Court established that a pardon must be accepted to be valid, implying that rejection preserves the recipient's ability to contest guilt, but it did not explicitly rule that acceptance equals a formal admission.
More recently, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Lorance v. Commandant (2021) interpreted the Burdick language more narrowly. It ruled that accepting a pardon does not necessarily constitute a legal confession of guilt that would bar further challenges, such as habeas corpus relief. The court described the Burdick statement as dicta and noted that a pardon’s text could be "agnostic" about guilt or innocence unless conditioned otherwise, suggesting that acceptance does not automatically forfeit claims of innocence.
In summary, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Burdick v. United States indicates that a presidential pardon carries an implication of guilt and that acceptance can be viewed as a confession in a practical or perceptual sense. However, this is not an absolute legal rule binding in all contexts, as later interpretations show that acceptance does not necessarily preclude asserting innocence or pursuing legal remedies, depending on the circumstances and the pardon’s terms. The issue remains nuanced, with no definitive Supreme Court holding that acceptance universally equates to a formal, legal admission of guilt.
Posted on 3/17/25 at 3:06 pm to Westbank111
quote:
But none of the previous presidents were bumbling idiots ridden with Dementia
As great as Prime Reagan was, he was gone well before he left office. But he didn't go out with a flurry of shady, last minute pardons either.
Posted on 3/17/25 at 3:09 pm to VoxDawg
quote:
Especially with SCOTUS stating that acceptance of a pardon is a tacit implication of guilt. (Burdick v. United States 1915)
as far as I recall, this is dicta
Posted on 3/17/25 at 3:14 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
as far as I recall, this is dicta
If you read the case I linked above, it was also ignored like 10 years later when the court said you couldn't refuse a pardon
Posted on 3/17/25 at 3:31 pm to VoxDawg
Posted on 3/17/25 at 3:35 pm to SlowFlowPro
Trump could do the funniest thing ever by waiting until the Democrats pick a 2028 nominee and then pardon them for some fairly heinous things they have never been accused of
1) Can't refuse
2) tacitly guilty
1) Can't refuse
2) tacitly guilty
Posted on 3/17/25 at 4:13 pm to Fun Bunch
you can refuse a pardon…
Burdick is actually about newspaper editors refusing a pardon.
they had plead the 5th to avoid having to divulge a source. Wilson gave them blanket pardons because you can’t plead the 5th if you’re immune from prosecution.
They refused.
Burdick is actually about newspaper editors refusing a pardon.
they had plead the 5th to avoid having to divulge a source. Wilson gave them blanket pardons because you can’t plead the 5th if you’re immune from prosecution.
They refused.
Page 17 of 17
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News