2 ms·

> The venue moving to a federal court, for a person federally considered pardoned of all federal jeopardy, seems like a problem. Its not. A federal pardon Cons

> The venue moving to a federal court, for a person federally considered pardoned of all federal jeopardy, seems like a problem. Its not. A federal pardon Constitutionally can only affects federal offenses, not state offenses. That Congress has created a mechanism by which federal courts may try some state offenses does not convert them into federal offenses. > IANAL but I don't see why a federal pardon wouldn't be binding on a federal court Because the Constitution doesn't give the President the power to pardon anything but offenses against the federal government. It is the sovereign against which an offense is alleged, not the court in which it is tried, that matters.

mothballed 10mo ago
Yes you and your sister comment are claiming it is only a venue change. A couple points (1) Per my response to your sister comment[] the inapplicability of federal pardons to cases removed federal courts hasn't actually been decided by the courts. Some scholars seem you are right, although so far I've done the favors for both of you by pulling up the most readily available citation I could find since you furnished none of your own. (2) Even if you are correct, you are merely moving my goal post of my OG comment claim, which was that there could be jurisdiction removal, to one where you are suggesting it doesn't matter and the goal post is now whether a pardon applies in the case of jurisdiction removal. I find this a doubtful position, as there is a reason why the feds are often desperate to get their cases pulled into federal court, it can't be for nothing. [] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46561006 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46561006
- dragonwriter 10mo ago
  > I find this a doubtful position, as there is a reason why the feds are often desperate to get their cases pulled into federal court, it can't be for nothing. The reason is the perception that, in times of high state-federal friction (which is when most attempted state prosecutions of federal agents, and therefore both removal and Supremeacy Clause immunity cases occur) state judges are more likely act with bias against the federal government and federal agent defendants. It’s not because of the fedeal pardon power (which has never been an issue in such cases, as you yourself implicitly note) magically becomes applicable. There's also an economy of justice concern, since it usually cuts out a couple levels of appeal on federal questions, (instead of trial court, state intermediate appellate court, state supreme court, federal circuit, and US supreme court, the chain is just trial court, federal circuit, US supreme court) and these type of cases always involve federal questions (every case where removal is an issue due to a federal officer being involved is also a case where the parameters of Supremacy Clause immunity are going to be an active issue, and there are possibly other federal issues involved.)

mothballed 10mo ago

Yes you and your sister comment are claiming it is only a venue change. A couple points (1) Per my response to your sister comment[] the inapplicability of federal pardons to cases removed federal courts hasn't actually been decided by the courts. Some scholars seem you are right, although so far I've done the favors for both of you by pulling up the most readily available citation I could find since you furnished none of your own. (2) Even if you are correct, you are merely moving my goal post of my OG comment claim, which was that there could be jurisdiction removal, to one where you are suggesting it doesn't matter and the goal post is now whether a pardon applies in the case of jurisdiction removal. I find this a doubtful position, as there is a reason why the feds are often desperate to get their cases pulled into federal court, it can't be for nothing. [] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46561006 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46561006

dragonwriter 10mo ago
> I find this a doubtful position, as there is a reason why the feds are often desperate to get their cases pulled into federal court, it can't be for nothing. The reason is the perception that, in times of high state-federal friction (which is when most attempted state prosecutions of federal agents, and therefore both removal and Supremeacy Clause immunity cases occur) state judges are more likely act with bias against the federal government and federal agent defendants. It’s not because of the fedeal pardon power (which has never been an issue in such cases, as you yourself implicitly note) magically becomes applicable. There's also an economy of justice concern, since it usually cuts out a couple levels of appeal on federal questions, (instead of trial court, state intermediate appellate court, state supreme court, federal circuit, and US supreme court, the chain is just trial court, federal circuit, US supreme court) and these type of cases always involve federal questions (every case where removal is an issue due to a federal officer being involved is also a case where the parameters of Supremacy Clause immunity are going to be an active issue, and there are possibly other federal issues involved.)