4 ms·

Lawyer here - the true consitutional crisis will likely come when the judge holds someone in criminal contempt, and trump pardons them. There is some unfortun

Lawyer here - the true consitutional crisis will likely come when the judge holds someone in criminal contempt, and trump pardons them. There is some unfortunate precedent that allows this. At the time, the ruling was not really that consequential, but obviously, much more so now. My general view is that pardon power was not really intended to extend to things which are fundamental to the function of another co-equal branch. It was meant to be federal crimes. In the end, Madison/et al felt that impeachment would suffice to protect from pardon abuse. Contempt of this kind is not really a federal crime - it was considered part of the inherent powers of a court, but there is a statute that now covers it (18 USC 401), so it is unfortunately considered a federal crime and thus pardonable. So when trump gets pissed off or whatever and pardons whoever gets held in contempt, that's when it's basically a crisis. Because at that point it just means they don't actually have to care. They will just abuse this legal loophole and declare that everything is actually okay, and they have done nothing wrong. There are other ways, of course, it may become one, but that one seems the most likely path to me at the moment.

hayst4ck 1y ago
> Lawyer here - the true consitutional crisis will likely come when the judge holds someone in criminal contempt, and trump pardons them. This already happened in Melendres v. Arpaio: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Joe_Arpaio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Joe_Arpaio On August 25, 2017, President Donald Trump pardoned Joe Arpaio for criminal contempt of court, a misdemeanor.
- DannyBee 1y ago
  Sorry, maybe i was not specific enough. I meant when he pardons a meaningful us government official for violating a court order that he didn't give a shit about. In this case Joe was pardoned for criminal contempt of a court order related to racial profiling. While it involved immigrants, it's not like he was a member of the US government. He was a state official doing state things, that were, yes, in line with trump's policy objectives. That's fairly different. It was also two months later. Back then nobody also cared in the way they do now, and to be blunt, it's hard to get people to care about racial profiling crimes anyway. The same way nobody cared when the precedent was originally sent.
  - hayst4ck 1y ago
    Honestly, and I am being this direct because you say you are a professional which means you understand exactly what it means, but also understand the consequences of it being as it appears... your explanation sounds like you are experiencing grief and in the first stage of it, denial, to me. Why did you add "meaningful" as a qualifier, what are on both sides of "meaningful" as a fulcrum of judgement? Why isn't this as bad as it appears? I would argue it was a proof of concept for executive supremacy over the judiciary and that concept was proven making it a full blown constitutional crisis. Even assuming what you said is true, from a historical perspective, the SS were not government officials, but a paramilitary "deputized" by their leader and eventually given state legitimacy. This means the analysis must not be done from a framing of official acts, because in an authoritarian government anything the authoritarian wants is officially sanctioned, and punishment of anything they don't want is also officially sanctioned. Pardoning contempt, under any circumstances, means that the court cannot compel a person to participate in judiciary process, no? NPR was talking about this back then and stating that the apparent ruling is that the only check on executive power right now is a 60% vote in congress, otherwise the president is above the law. That is a constitutional crisis.
ropable 1y ago
I continue to be astounded that the ability of the US president to pardon someone of a criminal conviction exists. It seems like such a blatant contradiction of the separation of powers.
- rich_sasha 1y ago
  It's not unique to the US. Many countries have it. I must say, sans abuse, it is useful. It is intended for the very few people who fall through the cracks of legal rules. There was a guy in Poland who was extorted by gangsters. Initially he took an informal loan, but they made him repay it indefinitely, threatening violence. Police failed to help, for unclear reasons. He ended up murdering the extorted. It was a premeditated murder, not in direct defence of his life, etc, and so he got life imprisonment. He did serve a chunk of his sentence, but in the end was pardoned, on the grounds that he was kind of in a hard place. Without help from the police, he was at the mercy of a gangster, with a constant threat of violence and no perspective of any relief. Link in Polish: https://pl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artur_Bryli%C5%84ski https://pl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artur_Bryli%C5%84ski It's not without controversy in Poland either. It was used in an attempt to quash an ongoing process about blatant abuse of power by two politicians. But I would disagree that the prerogative is totally without merit.
AnimalMuppet 1y ago
> the true consitutional crisis will likely come when the judge holds someone in criminal contempt, and trump pardons them. Or federal agents refuse to arrest them.

hayst4ck 1y ago

> Lawyer here - the true consitutional crisis will likely come when the judge holds someone in criminal contempt, and trump pardons them. This already happened in Melendres v. Arpaio: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Joe_Arpaio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Joe_Arpaio On August 25, 2017, President Donald Trump pardoned Joe Arpaio for criminal contempt of court, a misdemeanor.

DannyBee 1y ago
Sorry, maybe i was not specific enough. I meant when he pardons a meaningful us government official for violating a court order that he didn't give a shit about. In this case Joe was pardoned for criminal contempt of a court order related to racial profiling. While it involved immigrants, it's not like he was a member of the US government. He was a state official doing state things, that were, yes, in line with trump's policy objectives. That's fairly different. It was also two months later. Back then nobody also cared in the way they do now, and to be blunt, it's hard to get people to care about racial profiling crimes anyway. The same way nobody cared when the precedent was originally sent.
- hayst4ck 1y ago
  Honestly, and I am being this direct because you say you are a professional which means you understand exactly what it means, but also understand the consequences of it being as it appears... your explanation sounds like you are experiencing grief and in the first stage of it, denial, to me. Why did you add "meaningful" as a qualifier, what are on both sides of "meaningful" as a fulcrum of judgement? Why isn't this as bad as it appears? I would argue it was a proof of concept for executive supremacy over the judiciary and that concept was proven making it a full blown constitutional crisis. Even assuming what you said is true, from a historical perspective, the SS were not government officials, but a paramilitary "deputized" by their leader and eventually given state legitimacy. This means the analysis must not be done from a framing of official acts, because in an authoritarian government anything the authoritarian wants is officially sanctioned, and punishment of anything they don't want is also officially sanctioned. Pardoning contempt, under any circumstances, means that the court cannot compel a person to participate in judiciary process, no? NPR was talking about this back then and stating that the apparent ruling is that the only check on executive power right now is a 60% vote in congress, otherwise the president is above the law. That is a constitutional crisis.

ropable 1y ago

I continue to be astounded that the ability of the US president to pardon someone of a criminal conviction exists. It seems like such a blatant contradiction of the separation of powers.

rich_sasha 1y ago
It's not unique to the US. Many countries have it. I must say, sans abuse, it is useful. It is intended for the very few people who fall through the cracks of legal rules. There was a guy in Poland who was extorted by gangsters. Initially he took an informal loan, but they made him repay it indefinitely, threatening violence. Police failed to help, for unclear reasons. He ended up murdering the extorted. It was a premeditated murder, not in direct defence of his life, etc, and so he got life imprisonment. He did serve a chunk of his sentence, but in the end was pardoned, on the grounds that he was kind of in a hard place. Without help from the police, he was at the mercy of a gangster, with a constant threat of violence and no perspective of any relief. Link in Polish: https://pl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artur_Bryli%C5%84ski https://pl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artur_Bryli%C5%84ski It's not without controversy in Poland either. It was used in an attempt to quash an ongoing process about blatant abuse of power by two politicians. But I would disagree that the prerogative is totally without merit.

AnimalMuppet 1y ago

> the true consitutional crisis will likely come when the judge holds someone in criminal contempt, and trump pardons them. Or federal agents refuse to arrest them.