3 ms·

I don't think SCOTUS in its entire history has ever directly ordered anyone jailed, only upheld lower court rulings jailing someone or overturning opinions that

I don't think SCOTUS in its entire history has ever directly ordered anyone jailed, only upheld lower court rulings jailing someone or overturning opinions that concluded someone shouldn't be jailed. So at most that's recourse within the judicial system failing, not lack of recourse; obviously, pardon power can "fail" as recourse too, if anything, not providing recourse to injustice is the normal operation of pardon power. If my choices were status quo and status-quo-except-pardon-power-is-abolished, I would probably prefer the status quo, because law enforcement overreach is currently a bigger problem than abuse of pardon power. But you made a much stronger statement: "There's no choice in a democracy but to have something like the pardon power." I disagree with that, I could easily imagine a much more just and fair democratic system where all recourse to judicial overreach still involved a decision by a judge at some point.

yyyk 6y ago
Well, I think the judicial/legal branch can overstep like any other, and needs some checks too. Letting everything be decided by a judge with a lifetime position risks the court forcing its position on an unwilling populace (think of SCOTUS's original position during the New Deal). But impeachment/packing is a radical move (itself a power play which can be just as unjustified), and doesn't necessarily help the accused as much. As I wrote, if I had a say on this I'd go for a more limited pardon power than the current situation. I suspect our positions in the end aren't too different.