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.
this post was submitted on 20 Jan 2025
189 points (99.5% liked)
politics
19691 readers
5810 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
Trump’s the glove for their hands on the levers of power. All it costs them is money and he does whatever they want. He stands for nothing.
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
I think the presidential office should go away. It's too much power for one man in our modern world.
"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.
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."
SCOTUS: it depends. Are we talking about a democrat or republican?
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.
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.
Frankly I don't see any real indication it'll matter. If Trump thinks lynching someone will make him more popular he'll do it.
He'll do it just because he's petty and thin-skinned.
He should have pardoned himself just to force the Supremes to rule on the unlawfulness of self-pardons. That'd block Trump from later trying it.