this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2024
63 points (93.2% liked)
Overseas News
510 readers
82 users here now
A place for Australians and friends to share news from the other countries. Like all communities here, we discuss topics from the Australian perspective.
If you're looking for a global /c/worldnews instead, search for the many options on federated instances.
Rules
- Follow the aussie.zone rules
- We are not a generic World News clone. News must be relevant to Australians and our region. Obvious disregard will earn an warning and then a ban if continued. (If an article isn't from an Oceanian news outlet, and it doesn’t mention Australia, then it’s probably off-topic)
- Leave seppocentrism at the door. If you don't know what that means, you're not ready to post here yet.
- Avoid editorialising headlines. Opinions go in the comments, not the post.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The Supreme Court isn't going to do that. Art. 2 Sec. 2 and the 5A's double jeopardy clauses are quite clear on the matter.
They'd sooner overrule Wickard v. Filburn than do that.
They wont do it because it would set precident for if the dems ever do get back into power to do it right back to them.
I doubt double jeopardy applies, because that would mean they’d charge and prosecute him again. Reversing a pardon has nothing to do with prosecution.
Also there is nothing in the constitution that states a pardon is final. Only the Supreme Court has said that, and we all know that a later Supreme Court can (and has) overrule a previous Supreme Court decision.
And Wickard v. Filburn is a red herring.
"nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;"
The double jeopardy clause doesn't limit itself to only prohibiting second prosecutions. Once a case has been prosecuted to conclusion the defendant may not be made subject to the punishment again. A pardon terminating a punishment, would forestall recision as that would be once again subjecting the defendant for the same offensive.