politics
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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
A pardon is an admittance of criminality and guilt.
They should’ve treated as criminals until they make amends to society.
No, it isn't. A 1915 SCOTUS ruling stated that "“carries an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it.” But that reasoning, according to this analysis is flawed.
Indeed, a recent appeals court ruling supports this analyses and states “not every acceptance of a pardon constitutes a confession of guilt.” Presidents can pardon people they believe to be innocent. And one does not need to accept a pardon for it to take effect. If a pardoned person does nothing, then they still receive immunity from prosecution conferred by the pardon without confessing to any crime. Pardons can even be granted posthumously. Obviously a dead person cannot confess to a crime when they are pardoned.
Edit to fix quote.
Not anymore
I don't agree with that necessarily when people cheer to lock someone up without a cause. Like if a president came forward and pardoned say all the people who have immigrated to this country for any previous issues while filing out immigration paperwork, such as typos name changes, and so on then it isn't directly to cover for guilt, but rather to protect a group of people from harassment.
Edit then you can institute a review process and further assistance while submitting such paperwork in the future and it could mitigate witch hunts and mistreatment of people
I believe immigration violations aren’t criminal charges, they’re civil charges. That’s why you don’t get a lawyer and proceedings are in immigration courts.
A president can grant amnesty instead, which doesn’t have anything to do with admissions of guilt that I’m aware of.
The President has not been granted the power of amnesty over immigration violations.
Consider that President Obama tried a much narrower executive action to exercise prosecution discretion over immigration violations, and that still faced some very stiff scrutiny from the courts. If Obama had an amnesty power, he would have probably used it.
Presidents do have a few other levers to let people enter and stay in the country on their discretion:
Sorry I was tired, I was thinking of the Reagan amnesty, but that was an act of congress that he signed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_1986
Republicans have been using the pardon power to reward their political operatives from the crimes they did to help their political party.
Fascists are exploiting our laws to destroy our democracy.
Yeah I mean I believe that pardons shouldn't really exist within the executive branch. If they are necessary I feel the process would be better if the executive branch had to send names and crimes you intend to congress with a period of say 60 days to review, a hearing date is set before congress and at the end of that 60 days the executive branch sends their members to present their "case" before congress of why they are special cases and the law shouldn't just be updated for every individual who performs these acts, past/present/future. Then if 60% of congress votes for it it goes through, or if they vote for a 60 day extension to bring any new information brought during the executive branches testimony to their constituents to see if they need to change their stance.
So effectively that would make it so congress and the executive branch have to be in agreement to overall a finding by the judicial branch. It also should prompt a review of the laws that they had broken to make sure they are brought up to date to ensure future cases aren't need to be heard.
I fully agree that the pardon power should not be a get out of jail card for criminals.
It’s Saturday which means there’s already too much booze in me but I want a robust system that would filter out political reward pardons, wealth/personal connection pardons and any pardon that happens only because the party giving the pardon benefitted from the crime.
Also, expand SCOTUS to take away the federalist foundation’s control over the American judiciary.
I hear what you are saying, but legally that isn't how it works. The previous commenter is correct, legally speaking in the US. A pardon is absolutely an admission of guilt.
There are ways around this. You can submit an Alford Plea at your original trial, which again would still indicate guilt under the law, but is a way that a defendant can legally enter into the record that they are "innocent of the charges, but due to circumstances beyond their control, one will submit to the punishment."
IANYL. I don't know how this would actually play out inside the bureaucracy.
No a pardon doesn't have to do with guilt. Guilt is depicted by a judge/jury or by taking a plea deal. A pardon can occur before charges are even filed, and one cannot be declared guilty until a conviction is made... Which would never come to be.
So legally yes, that's exactly how it works. If Trump pardons Kushner for using U.S. funds and negotiating on behalf of the U.S. like Kushners lawyer recognized he was the signatory on an account holding $770 million dollars but did not make any decisions without Trump approval.
No charges have yet been brought against him. If said pardon goes through it doesnt mean he actually did anything wrong.. it means he won't have to appear in a federal court and explain where/when he turned over access to those accounts when Trump left office(he likely never did)
But in the U.S. you are innocent until proven guilty, and in such a case... He wasn't proven guilty.
Fuck Trump. But also fuck double standards.
Biden’s weak old ass pardons people that don’t need one but appointed useless Merrick Garland as attorney general. I am tired of all the weak centrist Democrats doing nothing but performative useless shit and letting all the Republicans tax cuts stay.