|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On December 02 2024 11:20 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2024 11:16 Introvert wrote:And, as should be a shock to absolutely no one who knows Joe Biden, he pardoned Hunter even though he said he wouldn't. I saw so much praise being heaped on him for saying he decline all those months ago. Hope everyone enjoys all the J6 defendants who are going to be pardoned, probably more than would have been before this. I wonder if Trump and Biden discussed this at some point in the past month. https://www.yahoo.com/news/biden-pardons-son-hunter-despite-003718639.html I understand the impulse as a parent but fuck no he shouldn’t have been pardoned But the whole concept is complete lunacy to begin with. Why is it even a thing?
You mean why does the power of Executive Pardon exist? Because it was written into the constitution, specifically article 2 section 2.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Why did the founders think this was a good idea? I don't know. But it's there.The only realistic check on the power is that it doesn't allow you to be pardoned for state crimes. But then the Governor of a state has the power to do that and we have the same potential abuse of that power there too.
|
I don't have time for it now but I am a defender of the pardon power still. It can right wrongs and also can make wrongs less likely in the first place, if an overly aggressive judge or prosecutor tries blatant abuses of power. It's been used in shady ways at the end of term for many presidencies now, but Biden promising he wouldn't and then doing it for ridiculous reasons really is the icing on the cake here.
|
Northern Ireland27478 Posts
On December 02 2024 11:32 Introvert wrote:
I don't have time for it now but I am a defender of the pardon power still. It can right wrongs and also can make wrongs less likely in the first place, if an overly aggressive judge or prosecutor tries blatant abuses of power. It's been used in shady ways at the end of term for many presidencies now, but Biden promising he wouldn't and then doing it for ridiculous reasons really is the icing on the cake here.
Would a functioning judiciary/criminal justice appeals process not do the same thing without the incredibly obvious pitfalls of conflicts of interest that come with an arbitrary executive pardon process?
It has done some good in some cases, can’t argue against that. But even then it’s whatever injustices are politically popular enough to throw a pardon too
It’s a completely ridiculous system
|
On December 02 2024 11:41 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2024 11:32 Introvert wrote:
I don't have time for it now but I am a defender of the pardon power still. It can right wrongs and also can make wrongs less likely in the first place, if an overly aggressive judge or prosecutor tries blatant abuses of power. It's been used in shady ways at the end of term for many presidencies now, but Biden promising he wouldn't and then doing it for ridiculous reasons really is the icing on the cake here. Would a functioning judiciary/criminal justice appeals process not do the same thing without the incredibly obvious pitfalls of conflicts of interest that come with an arbitrary executive pardon process? It has done some good in some cases, can’t argue against that. But even then it’s whatever injustices are politically popular enough to throw a pardon too It’s a completely ridiculous system
It seems like the US could use clearer 'lame duck' rules for the end of presidential terms so they at least have to pay for it politically.
|
On December 02 2024 11:47 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2024 11:41 WombaT wrote:On December 02 2024 11:32 Introvert wrote:
I don't have time for it now but I am a defender of the pardon power still. It can right wrongs and also can make wrongs less likely in the first place, if an overly aggressive judge or prosecutor tries blatant abuses of power. It's been used in shady ways at the end of term for many presidencies now, but Biden promising he wouldn't and then doing it for ridiculous reasons really is the icing on the cake here. Would a functioning judiciary/criminal justice appeals process not do the same thing without the incredibly obvious pitfalls of conflicts of interest that come with an arbitrary executive pardon process? It has done some good in some cases, can’t argue against that. But even then it’s whatever injustices are politically popular enough to throw a pardon too It’s a completely ridiculous system It seems like the US could use clearer 'lame duck' rules for the end of presidential terms so they at least have to pay for it politically.
Oh we'll pay for it politically. When Trump uses Biden's pardon of his son to justify pardoning whoever the fuck he wants.
You could make the argument Trump was going to do that anyway, but now Joe just gave him political cover to get away with it, because of fucking course he did.
I'm so sick of Democrats man.
|
On December 02 2024 12:30 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2024 11:47 Fleetfeet wrote:On December 02 2024 11:41 WombaT wrote:On December 02 2024 11:32 Introvert wrote:
I don't have time for it now but I am a defender of the pardon power still. It can right wrongs and also can make wrongs less likely in the first place, if an overly aggressive judge or prosecutor tries blatant abuses of power. It's been used in shady ways at the end of term for many presidencies now, but Biden promising he wouldn't and then doing it for ridiculous reasons really is the icing on the cake here. Would a functioning judiciary/criminal justice appeals process not do the same thing without the incredibly obvious pitfalls of conflicts of interest that come with an arbitrary executive pardon process? It has done some good in some cases, can’t argue against that. But even then it’s whatever injustices are politically popular enough to throw a pardon too It’s a completely ridiculous system It seems like the US could use clearer 'lame duck' rules for the end of presidential terms so they at least have to pay for it politically. Oh we'll pay for it politically. When Trump uses Biden's pardon of his son to justify pardoning whoever the fuck he wants. You could make the argument Trump was going to do that anyway, but now Joe just gave him political cover to get away with it, because of fucking course he did. I'm so sick of Democrats man.
Trump has already shown he has no qualms pardoning whoever the fuck he wants. Trump doesn't care about the norms of who other presidents pardon or don't pardon. He was not punished politically for this.
|
United States24813 Posts
Not sure I agree with this action from Biden, but on the other hand, this is what the American people voted for.
|
On December 02 2024 13:13 Azuzu wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2024 12:30 Vindicare605 wrote:On December 02 2024 11:47 Fleetfeet wrote:On December 02 2024 11:41 WombaT wrote:On December 02 2024 11:32 Introvert wrote:
I don't have time for it now but I am a defender of the pardon power still. It can right wrongs and also can make wrongs less likely in the first place, if an overly aggressive judge or prosecutor tries blatant abuses of power. It's been used in shady ways at the end of term for many presidencies now, but Biden promising he wouldn't and then doing it for ridiculous reasons really is the icing on the cake here. Would a functioning judiciary/criminal justice appeals process not do the same thing without the incredibly obvious pitfalls of conflicts of interest that come with an arbitrary executive pardon process? It has done some good in some cases, can’t argue against that. But even then it’s whatever injustices are politically popular enough to throw a pardon too It’s a completely ridiculous system It seems like the US could use clearer 'lame duck' rules for the end of presidential terms so they at least have to pay for it politically. Oh we'll pay for it politically. When Trump uses Biden's pardon of his son to justify pardoning whoever the fuck he wants. You could make the argument Trump was going to do that anyway, but now Joe just gave him political cover to get away with it, because of fucking course he did. I'm so sick of Democrats man. Trump has already shown he has no qualms pardoning whoever the fuck he wants. Trump doesn't care about the norms of who other presidents pardon or don't pardon. He was not punished politically for this.
That is why he famously pardoned Assange and Snowden.
|
|
|
On December 02 2024 11:24 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2024 11:20 WombaT wrote:On December 02 2024 11:16 Introvert wrote:And, as should be a shock to absolutely no one who knows Joe Biden, he pardoned Hunter even though he said he wouldn't. I saw so much praise being heaped on him for saying he decline all those months ago. Hope everyone enjoys all the J6 defendants who are going to be pardoned, probably more than would have been before this. I wonder if Trump and Biden discussed this at some point in the past month. https://www.yahoo.com/news/biden-pardons-son-hunter-despite-003718639.html I understand the impulse as a parent but fuck no he shouldn’t have been pardoned But the whole concept is complete lunacy to begin with. Why is it even a thing? You mean why does the power of Executive Pardon exist? Because it was written into the constitution, specifically article 2 section 2. Show nested quote + The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. Why did the founders think this was a good idea? I don't know. But it's there.The only realistic check on the power is that it doesn't allow you to be pardoned for state crimes. But then the Governor of a state has the power to do that and we have the same potential abuse of that power there too.
I think your first answer is not a good answer to this question. "Because the constitution says so" is not a good answer to "why is it like this", because there should be a deeper reason for it. As you noted yourself, this directly leads to the question of "And why does the constitution say so?
Every law and norm should always have a deeper reason than "because some guys wrote it like that 200 years ago".
|
On December 02 2024 14:34 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2024 11:24 Vindicare605 wrote:On December 02 2024 11:20 WombaT wrote:On December 02 2024 11:16 Introvert wrote:And, as should be a shock to absolutely no one who knows Joe Biden, he pardoned Hunter even though he said he wouldn't. I saw so much praise being heaped on him for saying he decline all those months ago. Hope everyone enjoys all the J6 defendants who are going to be pardoned, probably more than would have been before this. I wonder if Trump and Biden discussed this at some point in the past month. https://www.yahoo.com/news/biden-pardons-son-hunter-despite-003718639.html I understand the impulse as a parent but fuck no he shouldn’t have been pardoned But the whole concept is complete lunacy to begin with. Why is it even a thing? You mean why does the power of Executive Pardon exist? Because it was written into the constitution, specifically article 2 section 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. Why did the founders think this was a good idea? I don't know. But it's there.The only realistic check on the power is that it doesn't allow you to be pardoned for state crimes. But then the Governor of a state has the power to do that and we have the same potential abuse of that power there too. I think your first answer is not a good answer to this question. "Because the constitution says so" is not a good answer to "why is it like this", because there should be a deeper reason for it. As you noted yourself, this directly leads to the question of "And why does the constitution say so? Every law and norm should always have a deeper reason than "because some guys wrote it like that 200 years ago".
Are you speaking in terms of ideals or in terms of reality? Because the reality is that because the Consitution says so, it's law. We need to ammend the constitution to change the power of Presidential Pardon and this Congress is incapable of getting a Constitutional Ammendment passed for ANY reason.
So it really doesn't matter if there is a deeper reason for it or not. The reality is that anything that's in the original 200 year old document is INCREDIBLY difficult to alter. Why do you think we still have the Second Ammendment?
If you want a deeper meaning, it's simply that Americans are not outraged ENOUGH at the power of Presidential Pardon that Congress has ever had strong enough support for a Constitutional Ammendment removing it, so it gets to stay the law of the land. Congress is the only branch of government with the power to alter the Constitution. For everyone else, whatever is in that document is sacrosanct.
|
I think Biden should have immediately pardoned his son, pointing out that the legal system in the US isn't just, and that presidents can and will use their power for their own sake, family and friends.
The legal system even collapses before Trump would have to pardon himself.
|
On December 02 2024 14:53 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2024 14:34 Simberto wrote:On December 02 2024 11:24 Vindicare605 wrote:On December 02 2024 11:20 WombaT wrote:On December 02 2024 11:16 Introvert wrote:And, as should be a shock to absolutely no one who knows Joe Biden, he pardoned Hunter even though he said he wouldn't. I saw so much praise being heaped on him for saying he decline all those months ago. Hope everyone enjoys all the J6 defendants who are going to be pardoned, probably more than would have been before this. I wonder if Trump and Biden discussed this at some point in the past month. https://www.yahoo.com/news/biden-pardons-son-hunter-despite-003718639.html I understand the impulse as a parent but fuck no he shouldn’t have been pardoned But the whole concept is complete lunacy to begin with. Why is it even a thing? You mean why does the power of Executive Pardon exist? Because it was written into the constitution, specifically article 2 section 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. Why did the founders think this was a good idea? I don't know. But it's there.The only realistic check on the power is that it doesn't allow you to be pardoned for state crimes. But then the Governor of a state has the power to do that and we have the same potential abuse of that power there too. I think your first answer is not a good answer to this question. "Because the constitution says so" is not a good answer to "why is it like this", because there should be a deeper reason for it. As you noted yourself, this directly leads to the question of "And why does the constitution say so? Every law and norm should always have a deeper reason than "because some guys wrote it like that 200 years ago". Are you speaking in terms of ideals or in terms of reality? Because the reality is that because the Consitution says so, it's law. We need to ammend the constitution to change the power of Presidential Pardon and this Congress is incapable of getting a Constitutional Ammendment passed for ANY reason. So it really doesn't matter if there is a deeper reason for it or not. The reality is that anything that's in the original 200 year old document is INCREDIBLY difficult to alter. Why do you think we still have the Second Ammendment? If you want a deeper meaning, it's simply that Americans are not outraged ENOUGH at the power of Presidential Pardon that Congress has ever had strong enough support for a Constitutional Ammendment removing it, so it gets to stay the law of the land. Congress is the only branch of government with the power to alter the Constitution. For everyone else, whatever is in that document is sacrosanct.
I just don't think "A book says it" is a good explanation. There has to be some reason why it was put into the constitution, and then one can argue if it should stay like that or if it should be changed.
I tend to be a bit removed from political realities in these discussions, trying to find an ideal state.
Anything else is kinda boring honestly. "Why is it like that?" "Because the law says it is like that." "Why does the law say that?" "Because it was originally written like that and never changed" "Why was it never changed?" "Because it is hard to change it."
There is just no interesting discussion to be had here. And the same chain of argument can be used for anything. I think a much more interesting question than "What does the law say?" is "What should the law say?".
And a step towards that is understanding the reason it was originally written like that. Surely the point wasn't so that corrupt politicians could pardon their cronies, there has to have been some good reason for it.
|
On December 02 2024 12:30 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2024 11:47 Fleetfeet wrote:On December 02 2024 11:41 WombaT wrote:On December 02 2024 11:32 Introvert wrote:
I don't have time for it now but I am a defender of the pardon power still. It can right wrongs and also can make wrongs less likely in the first place, if an overly aggressive judge or prosecutor tries blatant abuses of power. It's been used in shady ways at the end of term for many presidencies now, but Biden promising he wouldn't and then doing it for ridiculous reasons really is the icing on the cake here. Would a functioning judiciary/criminal justice appeals process not do the same thing without the incredibly obvious pitfalls of conflicts of interest that come with an arbitrary executive pardon process? It has done some good in some cases, can’t argue against that. But even then it’s whatever injustices are politically popular enough to throw a pardon too It’s a completely ridiculous system It seems like the US could use clearer 'lame duck' rules for the end of presidential terms so they at least have to pay for it politically. Oh we'll pay for it politically. When Trump uses Biden's pardon of his son to justify pardoning whoever the fuck he wants. You could make the argument Trump was going to do that anyway, but now Joe just gave him political cover to get away with it, because of fucking course he did. I'm so sick of Democrats man.
I don't think Joe should have pardoned Hunter, but the idea that this is going to provide "political cover" for Trump is just silly. Trump doesn't need political cover, he'll pardon whoever he wants anyway, and it's a lame double standard.
Furthermore, even if Joe wasn't pardoning Hunter, half the country would believe he secretly did anyway. Political cover can literally be invented out of nothing, when people will believe and trust whatever Trump says. That much is evident from Trump's rhetoric about universal tariffs being good for our economy, migrants stealing and eating pets, and pretty much everything else he lies about. And even if people stop supporting Trump, it's not like Trump is going to seriously run for a third term, so he has no consequences to worry about.
I also don't see how Joe's decision here should make you "sick of Democrats", as if the party conspired to help Hunter. This decision is on Joe.
|
US presidents always pardon a lot of people at the very end of their term, so one single instance is absolutely nothing. Trump is lower on the list (since he only served one term so far) with 238 pardons, commutations and clemency. Obama went nuts with 1927 over two terms (but I think fewer pardons than Trump).
Why exactly are we discussing one single instance of a pardon? Biden is currently at 25 pardons and roughly 140 commutations. He'll certainly ramp up these numbers before his term ends and that's nothing unusual.
These are all the pardons, commutations and clemency in presidential history. Adjust for terms/days served and you get a good picture of how normalized this is.
https://potus.com/presidential-facts/pardons-commutations/
|
I strongly believe that a good portion of the Trump voters really LIKES IT when somebody is mis-using his power.
Biden saying "FUCK YOU JUDGE ASSHOLE FOR NOT TAKING THE PLEA DEAL HERE IS A PARDON"
Is the Strong-man rhetoric those people flock to.
Of course this would have robbed the democrats of the terrible effective parroting of "trump is a criminal and our businesswoman millionaire isn't" line all the time.
All his cases now collapse - just as he said they would.
|
On December 02 2024 20:04 KT_Elwood wrote:
I strongly believe that a good portion of the Trump voters really LIKES IT when somebody is mis-using his power.
Biden saying "FUCK YOU JUDGE ASSHOLE FOR NOT TAKING THE PLEA DEAL HERE IS A PARDON"
Is the Strong-man rhetoric those people flock to.
Of course this would have robbed the democrats of the terrible effective parroting of "trump is a criminal and our businesswoman millionaire isn't" line all the time.
All his cases now collapse - just as he said they would.
To be fair, that line of attack lost them the election, so this feels a bit like Biden actually getting ahead of the curve for once -- it's not like the electorate particularly care about presidential pardon mis-use in the first place.
|
According to the article linked,. it seems that this is actually blanket pardon for any possible crimes Hunter committed between 2014 - 2024.
"The president's sweeping pardon covers not just the gun and tax offenses against the younger Biden, but also any other “offenses against the United States which he has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 1, 2014 through December 1, 2024."
|
Hunter has now been pardoned for crimes that Blumpf was impeached for pursuing the investigation of.
The wheels of justice seem to have their tires deflate when a Democrat is the passenger.
|
United Kingdom10026 Posts
Everyone should be hugely against this.
Its pure hypocrisy, and its using one's power for personal gain, which is a form of corruption (by my definition of corruption anyway) - although clearly not in law.
There's really no defending it.
The Democrats just cede more ground to Trump and give him more options to do whatever the hell he wants when in power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
