# Stupid Republican idea of the day **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 26, 2009, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897 "2009-03-26T18:48:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1815
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2018, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/36282 "2018-01-17T11:03:59Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Second best, [here.](http://www.gocomics.com/lil-donnie/2018/01/15) Honestly, [this](https://i.imgur.com/exl28vD.gif) should be the general year-long policy. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2018, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/36283 "2018-01-17T14:47:43Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > I hate Joe Arpaio as much as the next man, but… is this really true? > > Suppose that tomorrow I am falsely convicted of some crime. It’s 100% untrue, I’m 100% innocent, but due to a freakishly unfortunate set of circumstances, a jury convicts me. I’m still waiting for a lucky stroke where some new evidence will come to light, to prove my innocence, maybe there’s a computer very very slowly working on decrypting an encoded flash drive or something. And then the president pardons me. If I say “great, thanks, I would like to be a free man and not in jail”, does that mean I am somehow giving up any moral or ethical claim to say that I’m factually innocent, going forward? I mean, I can see an argument that now that I’m pardoned, I can no longer appeal my conviction should new evidence arise… so now I’ll no longer ever have a chance to _prove_ that I’m innocent in a court of law. But that doesn’t seem the same as admitting guilt, just acknowledging that I was in fact convicted. You still have a _moral_ claim that you are factually innocent, which is worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it - that is, nothing. You don’t have a _legal_ claim to factual innocence, which is what Arpaio wanted. If you don’t want to be a convict, reject the pardon and let justice take her majestic course. > [@Senegoid](#): > > I’m not convinced that accepting a pardon is, or should be construed as, a confession of guilt. > > Gerald Ford gave Nixon a blanket pardon of all crimes that he did or may have committed, without even specifying what the alleged crimes were. What did Nixon confess to in accepting that? Do pardonees even have the option to accept or not accept the pardon? That’s a good question, and one that suggests blanket pardons are not within the presidential gift. Nixon didn’t confess to anything because he hadn’t been charged with anything yet. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2018, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/36284 "2018-01-17T15:31:00Z")
Does accepting a pardon mean confessing guilt? [WaPo says it’s complicated.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/08/26/is-accepting-a-pardon-an-admission-of-guilt/?utm_term=.e0b328579bc1) ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2018, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/36285 "2018-01-17T16:15:56Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Does accepting a pardon mean confessing guilt? [WaPo says it’s complicated.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/08/26/is-accepting-a-pardon-an-admission-of-guilt/?utm_term=.e0b328579bc1) Well, on one hand we have the Supreme Court and various other courts. On the other, we have a guy writing his opinion. Tough call. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2018, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/36286 "2018-01-17T18:43:32Z")
The “guy” is Eugene Volokh, one of the best-known law professors and constitutional lawyers in the country. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2018, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/36287 "2018-01-17T18:58:43Z")
But he doesn’t have the power to undo existing judicial decisions with his resume. He can opine, but that’s all it is. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2018, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/36288 "2018-01-17T18:58:55Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The “guy” is Eugene Volokh, one of the best-known law professors and constitutional lawyers in the country. Yep, sure is. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2018, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/36289 "2018-01-17T19:02:25Z")
Well, if you go back to what I posted above, it is generally believed that this is the case, but it hasn’t been definitively ruled on at any point since. Someone would have to challenge that assumption in court and have the standing to do so, and I just don’t see that happening. Although if Pence were to pardon Trump, he started suing people for calling him Guilty and it went to the courts, I could see him riding it all the way up. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2018, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/36290 "2018-01-17T19:42:48Z")
It’s not even clear to me what “accepting a pardon means confessing guilt” actually even means. Certainly, there is a difference between a legal definition of that, if any, and a common usage definition. If I say “Bob is a confessed child rapist”, I mean, Bob himself has said that he raped children, which (barring coerced confessions) makes it pretty much certain that Bob raped children, and makes Bob worse than an accused child rapist, and even worse than a convicted child rapist. On the other hand, if Bob was accused of child rape, and then convicted of child rape, but professed his innocence all along, and then was pardoned, and the reason given for the pardon was that the president/governor believed that the whole trial was a fiasco, and Bob accepted the pardon because he didn’t want to spend his life in prison… well, I certainly wouldn’t put Bob into the same category as a “confessed child rapist”. And there’s no way any supreme court decision is even relevant to how I would feel about Bob in that situation. On the other hand, I can imagine that there are subtle legal difference between “confessed” and “convicted” and “accused”, and maybe for some of those, “convicted-and-then-was-pardoned-and-accepted-the-pardon” has a legal status that is most similar to “confessed”… for instance, giving up 5th amendment protection. But I think in common usage, people hearing “accepting a pardon means confessing your guilt” would not be thinking about legal status, but about moral/ethical everyday “guilt”. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2018, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/36291 "2018-01-17T19:45:35Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > Well, if you go back to what I posted above, it is generally believed that this is the case, but it hasn’t been definitively ruled on at any point since. > > Someone would have to challenge that assumption in court and have the standing to do so, and I just don’t see that happening. Although if Pence were to pardon Trump, he started suing people for calling him Guilty and it went to the courts, I could see him riding it all the way up. Except, the Shitgibbon does not sue people in order to win outright, he just drags them through the courts until they are exhausted and destitute. ---
**Author:** ![Rick\_Kitchen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rick_kitchen/32/522_2.png) [@Rick\_Kitchen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Kitchen)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2018, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/36292 "2018-01-17T20:59:50Z")
New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez wants to make police officers immune from prosecution for their actions on the job. > **[Gov. wants to grant immunity to police](https://www.abqjournal.com/1117026/gov-wants-to-grant-immunity-to-police.html)** > > Legislation would shield officers from liability for actions in the line of duty ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2018, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/36293 "2018-01-17T21:10:14Z")
Holy fucking crap is that a horrible idea. Yeah, there’s the caveat ‘as long as they’re complying with their training’, but that’s a huge can of worms right there, especially if someone cites their “Bulletproof Warrior” training, which strongly promotes the idea of shooting at the slightest hint of trouble. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2018, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/36294 "2018-01-17T21:17:53Z")
“It says right here in the training manual - “If the suspect even has a DRAWING of a gun, shoot him with every bullet you have”” So, sorry, I’m immune! ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2018, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/36295 "2018-01-17T21:19:05Z")
> [@Rick\_Kitchen](#): > > New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez wants to make police officers immune from prosecution for their actions on the job. > [https://www.abqjournal.com/1117026/gov-wants-to-grant-immunity-to-police.html](https://www.abqjournal.com/1117026/gov-wants-to-grant-immunity-to-police.html) > [@Chimera](#): > > Holy fucking crap is that a horrible idea. > Yeah, there’s the caveat ‘as long as they’re complying with their training’, but that’s a huge can of worms right there, especially if someone cites their “Bulletproof Warrior” training, which strongly promotes the idea of shooting at the slightest hint of trouble. No fascist state can prosper when police are held accountable for their actions. So if we want to continue to work toward becoming a solidly-fascist nation, of course we have to free police from all such accountability. Duh! ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2018, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/36296 "2018-01-18T16:59:24Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > It’s not even clear to me what “accepting a pardon means confessing guilt” actually even means. Certainly, there is a difference between a legal definition of that, if any, and a common usage definition. > > If I say “Bob is a confessed child rapist”, I mean, Bob himself has said that he raped children, which (barring coerced confessions) makes it pretty much certain that Bob raped children, and makes Bob worse than an accused child rapist, and even worse than a convicted child rapist. > > On the other hand, if Bob was accused of child rape, and then convicted of child rape, but professed his innocence all along, and then was pardoned, and the reason given for the pardon was that the president/governor believed that the whole trial was a fiasco, and Bob accepted the pardon because he didn’t want to spend his life in prison… well, I certainly wouldn’t put Bob into the same category as a “confessed child rapist”. And there’s no way any supreme court decision is even relevant to how I would feel about Bob in that situation. > On the other hand, I can imagine that there are subtle legal difference between “confessed” and “convicted” and “accused”, and maybe for some of those, “convicted-and-then-was-pardoned-and-accepted-the-pardon” has a legal status that is most similar to “confessed”… for instance, giving up 5th amendment protection. > > But I think in common usage, people hearing “accepting a pardon means confessing your guilt” would not be thinking about legal status, but about moral/ethical everyday “guilt”. It would be no different than if the didn’t get a pardon, and they were in prison or otherwise serving their sentence. If Bob professes his innocence, but is convicted by a court of law, what catagory would you put him in? Do you categorize people that are convicted of a crime differently if they profess their innocence? How does that catagory change because of a pardon? Just because one person has exercised their judgement to overrule the sentence that the court has deemed appropriate doesn’t mean that that one person in their unilateral judgement can simply declare them innocent. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2018, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/36297 "2018-01-18T17:03:17Z")
Call him a “pardoned child rapist” if it makes you feel better. ---
**Author:** ![Rick\_Kitchen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rick_kitchen/32/522_2.png) [@Rick\_Kitchen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Kitchen)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2018, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/36298 "2018-01-18T19:13:34Z")
Senator Tom Cotton is issuing cease and desist letters ordering his constituents to quit contacting his office. > **[Cotton’s Office Confirms Cease And Desists ‘Under Extreme Circumstances’](https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/cotton-office-cease-desist-letters)** > > Cameron Joseph contributed reporting. After a local outlet reported that Sen. Tom Cotton's (R-AR) office sent cease and desist letters to constituents, demanding that they stop any communications with… ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2018, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/36299 "2018-01-18T20:03:44Z")
Individual constituents, individually. I don’t think those letters have any legal force, either. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2018, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/36300 "2018-01-18T20:10:56Z")
His opponents, come election time, need to give that fact some air time. “He’s elected to represent all of the people of his district, yet he’s filing cease and desist letters against his own constituents because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. Is this the kind of Congressman you want to represent you?” ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2018, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/36301 "2018-01-18T20:30:17Z")
In the Illinois gubernatorial race, one of the Republican candidates offers a particularly unfortunate talking point: > [@](#): > > Ives, a three-term conservative lawmaker from Wheaton who is challenging Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner, responded to a question on curbing gun crimes. > > “The problem is the gun violence in this city of Chicago, predominantly. And you know how you’re going to solve it? Fathers in the home,” she said. > > As the audience booed and shouted, she repeated, “Fathers in the home.” > > Kennedy later got his turn to respond. > > “Well, I wish I could agree with you. I didn’t have a father in my life. Somebody shot him,” Kennedy, the son of the assassinated former U.S. Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, said to Ives before he left the forum amid applause and a standing ovation from hundreds of attendees… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897.md?page=1814) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897.md?page=1816)