Pardons

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

And if the senate or house is currently under the control of a party that opposes those actions?


In general, I think pardons are an imperfect solution to a problem, for which all alternatives are even more imperfect.

(Not that I wouldn't be opposed to seeing them modify the rules...)

I don't think there's anything wrong with pardons, and most Presidents have used them responsibly. But should any power of the President be absolute? It wouldn't diminish the interests of justice to establish some provision for Congress to revoke any particular pardon.

[SuburbanTurkey]

I think suspending the pardon power during lame duck sessions could do a fair bit to curtail some of the most nakedly corrupt examples.

Make presidents use the power when there's still the possibility of electoral blowback. The lame duck is only from mid November until inauguration in January, and only occurs every 4 or 8 years. Not an unreasonable limitation to this power.

[dudalb]

Looks as if New York State will pick up the Bannon prosecution from the Feds.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I think suspending the pardon power during lame duck sessions could do a fair bit to curtail some of the most nakedly corrupt examples.

Make presidents use the power when there's still the possibility of electoral blowback. The lame duck is only from mid November until inauguration in January, and only occurs every 4 or 8 years. Not an unreasonable limitation to this power.

Not necessarily a bad idea, but once again, it is dealing with something which may not be an issue if the president were not corrupt.

I can see value in a good president wanting to use a lame-duck period to pardon people who morally should be pardoned, but where the pardon would be politically unpopular. (An example of this would be Obama commuting the sentence of Chelsea Manning.)

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Craig4

Quote:

So, in the case of something like the Vietnam War draft dodgers... you would want to see them live the rest of their lives with the threat of prosecution over their heads, just because "We can only pardon you if you are found guilty"?

It's the statute of limitations.

So fine... change that to "you would see them have the threat of prosecution for years, until the statute of limitations runs out". Perhaps better, but still a problem.

Quote:

You can also modify prosecution guidelines to not pursue such charges.

Ideally, the department of justice should function independently from the presidency.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

So fine... change that to "you would see them have the threat of prosecution for years, until the statute of limitations runs out". Perhaps better, but still a problem.

Ideally, the department of justice should function independently from the presidency.

Not necessarily. We don't want the President locking up his opponents. But if he says "Let's not enforce federal marijuana laws in states where it's legal," or "Let's not separate babies from mothers at the border even if the law says we can," or "Let's not send minor criminals to prison if compliance and justice can be fulfilled by alternative means," that's not an abuse of power. That's exercising discretion.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I think suspending the pardon power during lame duck sessions could do a fair bit to curtail some of the most nakedly corrupt examples.

Make presidents use the power when there's still the possibility of electoral blowback. The lame duck is only from mid November until inauguration in January, and only occurs every 4 or 8 years. Not an unreasonable limitation to this power.

Wouldn't the entire 2nd term for a president be safe from "electoral blowback"?

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

Quote:

I think suspending the pardon power during lame duck sessions could do a fair bit to curtail some of the most nakedly corrupt examples.

Make presidents use the power when there's still the possibility of electoral blowback

Wouldn't the entire 2nd term for a president be safe from "electoral blowback"?

Not necessarily. Just because the president might not be re-elected does not mean there aren't potential ramifications from granting unpopular pardons.

The president would also want to make sure that his party did not lose congressional seats. And, they would also likely want to make sure their party maintained control of the white house (even if they personally were not running for re-election). Those could be in jeopardy if the president does something voters do not like, and they associate "the party" with "the president".

[The Don]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

Wouldn't the entire 2nd term for a president be safe from "electoral blowback"?

(S)he may have an effect on the Senate and House mid term elections.

[BobTheCoward]

What do modern democracies do? Does new zealand give the prime minister pardon power?

[Nessie]

Obama pardoned someone for the illegal sale and supply of alligator skins.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

What do modern democracies do? Does new zealand give the prime minister pardon power?

As a representative of the Crown, the Governor General has executive authority in accordance with section 61 of the constitution and can and pardon offenders. This is known as "The Royal Prerogative of Mercy". He does so on the advice of the Attorney General (a member of Parliament and part of the PM's cabinet).

I'm sure that it works the same way in NZ.

https://www.ag.gov.au/crime/federal-offenders/appeals

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Well a lifetime mandatory sentence for a few ounces of marijuana and a scale would be an example of a wrong a POTUS could assess as wrong, times changing and all that.

That is an example of an unjust law. A law that has been generated by Congress and given the stamp of approval by the POTUS. The law should be overturned in the same way and pardons given and/or sentences reduced by the Judiciary, not a random pardon here or there to someone the POTUS smiles upon.

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by psionl0

I don't get the fuss. Revoking or seriously modifying the President's power to issue pardons just because he might pardon the "wrong" people is nothing more than a trivial pursuit.

Not the first time we have disagreed on a topic.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I think suspending the pardon power during lame duck sessions could do a fair bit to curtail some of the most nakedly corrupt examples.

Make presidents use the power when there's still the possibility of electoral blowback. The lame duck is only from mid November until inauguration in January, and only occurs every 4 or 8 years. Not an unreasonable limitation to this power.

Another option is to remove the lame duck period entirely.

[bam]

Can we really end the lame duck period? Between tightly contested elections, recounts and the increasing prevalence of election lawsuits it may become more common for it to take extra time to even know who's won.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by Thermal

And for as lockstep as the conservative justices are perceived, they told the President to go pound sand in the recent electoral challenges. They do adhere to principles of law when the mood strikes.

Sure, but come on, it's not like there was any actual question here.

How much actual judicial principle does it take to not overturn the results of a Presidential election?

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by Craig4

I'd like to see the power modified so it could only be used if someone had been found guilty. If the intent is to right a miscarriage of justice, we should give justice a chance to be miscarried.

How about the fact that a large number of the pardoned are politicians who have been convicted of corruption?

Ootta love how the group that wants to "drain the swamp" would think the way to do that is to pardon politicians convicted of corruption. Pretty clearly they have a different concept of what constitutes the political swamp.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Another option is to remove the lame duck period entirely.

Unlikely to happen.

Not only would you need to amend the constitution (good luck getting enough states and Congress critters to agree), you would need to change the way the public service functions. (Some countries use a dedicated public service to run government organizations that stays in place between leadership changes. But because the heads of various departments are selected by the incoming administration, there needs to be a period of knowledge transfer)

Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Unlikely to happen.

Not only would you need to amend the constitution (good luck getting enough states and Congress critters to agree), you would need to change the way the public service functions. (Some countries use a dedicated public service to run government organizations that stays in place between leadership changes. But because the heads of various departments are selected by the incoming administration, there needs to be a period of knowledge transfer)
....

Not necessarily. The Constitution sets the date that presidential terms begin and end. But the dates of the election and electoral college meeting are set by law. They could be moved into December. Still a delay, but shorter.

[angrysoba]

In the All the President's Lawyers podcast, the host and guest agreed that Donald Trump seems to have a lot of solidarity with corrupt people as his pardons are very bipartisan.

ETA: But they say that this is the type of disgusting behaviour that pretty much all presidents engage in.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

In the All the President's Lawyers podcast, the host and guest agreed that Donald Trump seems to have a lot of solidarity with corrupt people as his pardons are very bipartisan.

ETA: But they say that this is the type of disgusting behaviour that pretty much all presidents engage in.

No reasonable person can think Trump's behavior has been anything like what any other President has done. He is the only President who took office without having previous public service in lower office, the military or often both. Other Presidents have been misguided or mistaken; Trump is the only one who thought the sole purpose of the entire government was to devote itself to his personal interests.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

In the All the President's Lawyers All the Presidents' Lawyers podcast, the host and guest agreed that Donald Trump seems to have a lot of solidarity with corrupt people as his pardons are very bipartisan.

ETA: But they say that this is the type of disgusting behaviour that pretty much all presidents engage in.

FTFY

I think Biden should keep Cipollone on staff to be part of anything involving Trump: it seems the man managed to keep Trump from doing some very damaging things. Biden could use someone who knows how to talk to Trump.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Bob001

No reasonable person can think Trump's behavior has been anything like what any other President has done. He is the only President who took office without having previous public service in lower office, the military or often both. Other Presidents have been misguided or mistaken; Trump is the only one who thought the sole purpose of the entire government was to devote itself to his personal interests.

I think they only mean that other presidents of both parties have pardoned corrupt politicians and businessmen.