dagblog - Comments for "The Necessary Anachronism of The Presidential Pardon"

So, I did a little (very

Michael Maiello — Mon, 28 Aug 2017 13:39:26 +0000

In reply to I agree with the gist of most

So, I did a little (very little) reading about why the Founders included the pardon as part of "the system."

Hamilton, lover of super hero executives, had two primary purposes:

1) Keep justice from becoming bloodthirsty (basically, my reason).

2) Give the president a means of forgiving rebels in the event of internal wars (logical, given how the founders got to be founders).

Times have changed. The second reason was likely more important then than now. The threat of mass insurrection seems low and the public desire to pardon violent militias in the name of "moving on" also seems low. But I do think the system has become cruel. Obama commuted sentences for more than 300 non-violent drug offenders, for example. Seems a good example of point 1, just one that didn't go far enough for my tastes.

But, if there's a Trump for every Obama, you might be right that I am that I am waving my hands at too many complexities.

I agree with the gist of most

Obey — Mon, 28 Aug 2017 10:28:01 +0000

In reply to The Necessary Anachronism of The Presidential Pardon

Michael, I agree with the gist of most of what you say, but I feel like you are only half-way to the right conclusion. You end on this point:

we need a human failsafe for our systems. The pardon power, thoughtfully applied, could be very good for society. Here's hoping Trump doesn't ruin it for the future.

Sure, a supra-legal authority empowered to right the wrongs of an institutionally warped legal system would help, given just the right person is put in that position. Your formulation implies that "our systems" are not made of humans (or intimate that they are, on the contrary, all too human in their professional biases), and somehow you manage to summon hopefulness about finally getting a *real* human in that unique position endowed with sufficient leverage to bend the universe a tad towards justice. Fine.

But let's just take a few steps back. In these days of Trump, a variant of your Bonnie Tyler-ish superhero appeal can round off pretty much any plaintive policy piece in any domain. But that seems like a dangerously blinkered and short-term palliative notion. The argument is that we need a super-presidency because X political/ economic / judicial institutions aren't working. But we've also got Trump now occupying that super-presidency precisely because those institutions aren't working. The idea that the solution is just to elect a better super-president in these circumstances is kissing-cousins with "assume a can-opener" thinking.

I get that you are making a narrow point regarding the power to pardon, but there is something misguided about the reflexive thinking (which I am perhaps unfairly associating you with) that seeks a solution to current systemic issues in the handing over of greater and greater powers to one person chosen through a deeply flawed process.

You're so right about federal

Michael Maiello — Mon, 28 Aug 2017 02:08:25 +0000

In reply to Excellent list, suggest this

You're so right about federal judges. Add District Court judges and I almost bet that the first person Trump told about his pardon was Gonzalo Curiel.

Excellent list, suggest this

artappraiser — Mon, 28 Aug 2017 02:04:32 +0000

In reply to Yeah, Trump only believes in

Excellent list, suggest this addition: in your face to all those federal judges stopping my immigration orders.

BTW just ran across a confirmation of your #2, was looking at Breitbart, ran across that Rove came out strongly on the McCain side on Fox News today.

Yeah, Trump only believes in

Michael Maiello — Mon, 28 Aug 2017 01:22:05 +0000

In reply to Why did you put a question

Yeah, Trump only believes in the grift. I figure, with this pardon, he saw a way to accomplish a lot of things at once:

1) Gift to the alt-right after Bannon/Gorka departures.

2) Thumb in the eye of the Republican establishment. (He needs to remind them often that he doesn't take orders, he gives them).

3) Piss of liberals. (He enjoys it).

4) Signal to anyone Mueller might subpeona that Trump is a pardony kind of guy.

5) Hurt Jeff Flake, piss of John McCain. (Scores, scores, scores.)

6) Make Blogging Great Again.

Why did you put a question

artappraiser — Sun, 27 Aug 2017 21:38:41 +0000

In reply to Orwellian doublethink?

Why did you put a question mark? It's amazing, actually, how his text is exemplified.

Orwellian doublethink?

NCD — Sun, 27 Aug 2017 20:51:01 +0000

In reply to As always you have succinctly

Orwellian doublethink?

To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy...

As always you have succinctly

artappraiser — Sun, 27 Aug 2017 19:36:52 +0000

In reply to The pardons of the bellicose

As always you have succinctly pegged Trump, NCD. For a minute or two after reading your comment, I got into fooling myself, thinking: but wait, this might be one instance where it's a core belief, haven't ever seen much evidence that he has been pro-immigrant and a lot of evidence that he admires authoritarian actors like Arpaio. BUT NOOOO, then I googled and found this:

2012 FLASHBACK: Donald Trump Said GOP Was Too ‘Mean-Spirited’ Towards Illegal Immigrants

The pardons of the bellicose

NCD — Sun, 27 Aug 2017 18:00:48 +0000

In reply to The Necessary Anachronism of The Presidential Pardon

The pardons of the bellicose ignoramus have the sole objective of inciting raucous cheers from his cult of imbeciles and racists at Adoration Rallies.