3 ms·

Ford did real damage that day.

by gcanyon 6mo ago

Pikamander2 6mo ago
The real embarrassment is how little effort there's been to limit/reform the pardon system since then. Pardons have valid uses, but it's wild that a single person can unilaterally pardon donators, family members, former presidents, etc, without needing so much as a simple majority confirmation vote in the House or Senate. The questionable pardons that we've seen over the last few years (and the Nixon pardon) are just the tip of iceberg in terms of how badly they could be abused. I'd imagine it won't be long until we see a president issue a preemptive pardon to themself at the end of their term, because there's nothing in the constitution that says they can't.
- Ray20 6mo ago
  Isn't that the whole point of all these pardon things? To reduce incentives to usurp power to avoid responsibility by providing less destructive for the political system ways to avoid responsibility.
  - ceejayoz 6mo ago
    They're a release valve for "the system fucked up and permitted an injustice". Avoiding responsibility isn't the goal, and shouldn't be possible.
  - cjbgkagh 6mo ago
    Or concretely, would the Israeli wars end sooner if Netanyahu was pardoned of all crimes? Would Kim Jong Un consider giving up his position if he could be pardoned, or at least credibly believe that he could live a life in luxurious exile? I don’t know the answer to either of those questions, but I do think letting some people get away with crimes with witness immunity can make it much more difficult for criminals to organize as the optimum move is to defect before anyone else does. Which is why I think elite blackmail focuses on unforgivable deeds.
    - Terr_ 6mo ago
      > Would Kim Jong Un consider giving up his position if he could be pardoned, or at least credibly believe that he could live a life in luxurious exile? The kind of despot that sends assassins against people in exile is unlikely to choose it themselves.
      - cjbgkagh 6mo ago
        Hense the credible belief. The Russians did manage to step down from violence so it is possible.
        watwut 6mo ago
        May want to check Russian agression for years. They did not stepped down much.
        cjbgkagh 6mo ago
        Not Russia in general but their leadership succession
- pianom4n 6mo ago
  > without needing so much as a simple majority confirmation vote in the House or Senate This is intentional. Pardons are part of the checks and balances against the legislative branch.
- raw_anon_1111 6mo ago
  It’s in the Constitution. There isn’t that much anyone can do.
  - ceejayoz 6mo ago
    The pardon power is. Presidential immunity for, say, selling a pardon is very new.
    - smackeyacky 6mo ago
      Hmm. I feel like it isn’t over the history of the US and there was a period where US governance tended toward an ideal but the last 50 years have reverted to the norm. E.g Oliver North
      - raw_anon_1111 6mo ago
        So exactly when was that? Before 50 years ago, “Separate but Equal” was the law of the land as decided by the Supreme Court, laws against interracial marriage and laws against “sodomy” (homosexuality) were also upheld by the Supreme Court. There is absolutely no point in US history that the US was “ideal”. My still living parents grew up in the segregated south.
        smackeyacky 6mo ago
        So perhaps the US was always an unjust shithole but I prefer to think the direction it was going was positive. It certainly isn’t positive now.
  - cheema33 6mo ago
    > It’s in the Constitution. There isn’t that much anyone can do. We have modified the constitution before. It is not easy, sure. But, presidential pardons are being abused so thoroughly that it does warrant people making the effort to change things.
    - 6mo ago
- dfxm12 6mo ago
  Congress has tools at their disposal, like impeachment, to punish a sitting president if they want to. Not sure if they can void an improper pardon, but it would nice if the threat of impeachment was more meaningful of a deterrent.
- expedition32 6mo ago
  In my country pardons very rarely happen because politicians would be massacred in the press for it. It is political suicide- one of the perks of having 20 different parties.
jfengel 6mo ago
[flagged]
- ceejayoz 6mo ago
  We should have litigated it then. Nixon should have died in prison. It would have been a good precedent to set
  - bethekidyouwant 6mo ago
    Life in prison for Watergate?
    - ceejayoz 6mo ago
      Yes. If we put 3x caught pot dealers in for life, a corrupt President can certainly rot alongside them. The more powerful you are, the more significant the penalties for abuse of that power should be, because the damage you can do is correspondingly large.
      - bethekidyouwant 6mo ago
        Don’t think the three strikes law you are referring to (3x nonviolent = life in prison) exists anymore. As it was generally regarded as a cruel mistake. Likewise with hanging politicians for lying…
    - Terr_ 6mo ago
      1. It's good to hold people in certain positions of power to higher standards, especially when... 2. They commit an additional concurrent offense of abusing those powers and public trust for crime.
  - deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]
- malshe 6mo ago
  "Time to move on" is used only when someone in power is guilty. Happened with Nixon. Mitch McConnell basically said the same thing about Trump after J6 insurrection. And I think Garland believed the same thing when he did not move fast enough to investigate Trump. People believe in law and order when rich and powerful face the same consequences as the common man for their crimes committed and not when they are let off the hook. The US has many such instances unfortunately.
Thorrez 6mo ago
Interestingly, Ford received a Kennedy Award for pardoning Nixon. https://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/22/us/ford-wins-kennedy-award-for-courage-of-nixon-pardon.html https://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/22/us/ford-wins-kennedy-awar...

Ford did real damage that day.

by gcanyon 6mo ago

Ford did real damage that day.

The real embarrassment is how little effort there's been to limit/reform the pardon system since then. Pardons have valid uses, but it's wild that a single person can unilaterally pardon donators, family members, former presidents, etc, without needing so much as a simple majority confirmation vote in the House or Senate. The questionable pardons that we've seen over the last few years (and the Nixon pardon) are just the tip of iceberg in terms of how badly they could be abused. I'd imagine it won't be long until we see a president issue a preemptive pardon to themself at the end of their term, because there's nothing in the constitution that says they can't.

Ray20 6mo ago
Isn't that the whole point of all these pardon things? To reduce incentives to usurp power to avoid responsibility by providing less destructive for the political system ways to avoid responsibility.
- ceejayoz 6mo ago
  They're a release valve for "the system fucked up and permitted an injustice". Avoiding responsibility isn't the goal, and shouldn't be possible.
- cjbgkagh 6mo ago
  Or concretely, would the Israeli wars end sooner if Netanyahu was pardoned of all crimes? Would Kim Jong Un consider giving up his position if he could be pardoned, or at least credibly believe that he could live a life in luxurious exile? I don’t know the answer to either of those questions, but I do think letting some people get away with crimes with witness immunity can make it much more difficult for criminals to organize as the optimum move is to defect before anyone else does. Which is why I think elite blackmail focuses on unforgivable deeds.
  - Terr_ 6mo ago
    > Would Kim Jong Un consider giving up his position if he could be pardoned, or at least credibly believe that he could live a life in luxurious exile? The kind of despot that sends assassins against people in exile is unlikely to choose it themselves.
    - cjbgkagh 6mo ago
      Hense the credible belief. The Russians did manage to step down from violence so it is possible.
      - watwut 6mo ago
        May want to check Russian agression for years. They did not stepped down much.
        cjbgkagh 6mo ago
        Not Russia in general but their leadership succession
pianom4n 6mo ago
> without needing so much as a simple majority confirmation vote in the House or Senate This is intentional. Pardons are part of the checks and balances against the legislative branch.
raw_anon_1111 6mo ago
It’s in the Constitution. There isn’t that much anyone can do.
- ceejayoz 6mo ago
  The pardon power is. Presidential immunity for, say, selling a pardon is very new.
  - smackeyacky 6mo ago
    Hmm. I feel like it isn’t over the history of the US and there was a period where US governance tended toward an ideal but the last 50 years have reverted to the norm. E.g Oliver North
    - raw_anon_1111 6mo ago
      So exactly when was that? Before 50 years ago, “Separate but Equal” was the law of the land as decided by the Supreme Court, laws against interracial marriage and laws against “sodomy” (homosexuality) were also upheld by the Supreme Court. There is absolutely no point in US history that the US was “ideal”. My still living parents grew up in the segregated south.
      - smackeyacky 6mo ago
        So perhaps the US was always an unjust shithole but I prefer to think the direction it was going was positive. It certainly isn’t positive now.
- cheema33 6mo ago
  > It’s in the Constitution. There isn’t that much anyone can do. We have modified the constitution before. It is not easy, sure. But, presidential pardons are being abused so thoroughly that it does warrant people making the effort to change things.
  - 6mo ago
dfxm12 6mo ago
Congress has tools at their disposal, like impeachment, to punish a sitting president if they want to. Not sure if they can void an improper pardon, but it would nice if the threat of impeachment was more meaningful of a deterrent.
expedition32 6mo ago
In my country pardons very rarely happen because politicians would be massacred in the press for it. It is political suicide- one of the perks of having 20 different parties.

jfengel 6mo ago

[flagged]

ceejayoz 6mo ago
We should have litigated it then. Nixon should have died in prison. It would have been a good precedent to set
- bethekidyouwant 6mo ago
  Life in prison for Watergate?
  - ceejayoz 6mo ago
    Yes. If we put 3x caught pot dealers in for life, a corrupt President can certainly rot alongside them. The more powerful you are, the more significant the penalties for abuse of that power should be, because the damage you can do is correspondingly large.
    - bethekidyouwant 6mo ago
      Don’t think the three strikes law you are referring to (3x nonviolent = life in prison) exists anymore. As it was generally regarded as a cruel mistake. Likewise with hanging politicians for lying…
  - Terr_ 6mo ago
    1. It's good to hold people in certain positions of power to higher standards, especially when... 2. They commit an additional concurrent offense of abusing those powers and public trust for crime.
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
malshe 6mo ago
"Time to move on" is used only when someone in power is guilty. Happened with Nixon. Mitch McConnell basically said the same thing about Trump after J6 insurrection. And I think Garland believed the same thing when he did not move fast enough to investigate Trump. People believe in law and order when rich and powerful face the same consequences as the common man for their crimes committed and not when they are let off the hook. The US has many such instances unfortunately.

Thorrez 6mo ago

Interestingly, Ford received a Kennedy Award for pardoning Nixon. https://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/22/us/ford-wins-kennedy-award-for-courage-of-nixon-pardon.html https://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/22/us/ford-wins-kennedy-awar...