Yes.
The problem is that the more novel the pardon, the more likely SCOTUS would be to invalidate it.
The Hunter pardon was worded rather like Nixon’s. That never got a court review, but maybe the current SCOTUS would consider this a sort of precedent.
Last thing I remember hearing was that he was to be sentenced Dec 12.
Can the SCOTUS invalidate a Presidential pardon for past events? Never heard of that. Has it ever been done?
Seems like the sine qua non of an “official act”.
Re last post, SCOTUS is not bound by precedent, although they try to follow it off and on. They can do what they want.
The official act thing has to do with the president ‘s criminal exposure, not that of his son.
Yes, but those are subject to change.
Under the Constitution? No.
Sure, but Old Joe’s got until 11:59 AM on Jan 20 to issue a pardon.
I’ve also “heard” (sorry, no cite at this time but I’ll look) that POTUS pardons don’t need to be publicly announced. They can be written on a bar napkin (probably should get it notarized), and stuffed behind a couch cushion (or under a shower mat in a tacky mansion’s bathroom) until applicable.
According to Trump, the president can declassify documents by thinking about it. I wonder if that also applies to pardons?
I’m sure he thinks so, he’s always blatantly considered “President” to be identical to “God-King”. At least when he’s the one in office, at least.
Biden absolutely assured us he had faith in the system.
The same one you and I are subject to.
But then he acted just the opposite to his statements
That is a hard sell, on the best of days.
No; “the system” with Biden or other non-fascists in charge is not at all the same as "the system with Trump and his fascists in charge. We are all about to be subject to an entirely different one.
Also, from a moral, political and practical perspective there’s no point in sacrificing a family member on the altar of mindlessly not changing his position when the situation is about to radically change.
It works for all of us, or none at all
This whole, they did it first routine is wearing thin.
I am tougher on the Biden, because at least for a moment he acted as if the law worked equally for all of us.
Trump at least said the obvious out loud
If Biden never really meant it, why did he say it.
That’s not how it works. This isn’t about morality or law or politics, it’s about preserving oneself and one’s family in the face or the enemy. America has collectively chosen to reject egalitarianism and fairness and justice in the name of tyranny, bigotry and corruption; “it works for all of us, or none at all” is the sort of principle that America has specifically rejected by choosing Trump.
If Biden were to loot the treasury and flee the country with billions of stolen dollars and blow up the White House behind him, it would perfectly fit the principles of selfishness and malice America has decided it wants. So what’s the big deal about pardoning a family member who has been targeted or persecution? If anything the entire Biden family should be worried about getting out of the country while they can, not the optics of a pardon.
When did “the democrats” ever reject the Presidential power to pardon in the Constitution?
It is in his powers, no doubt; I have no issue with that. Well I do but that is whole different issue.
I do have problems, with a President saying he would never do something , because he believes in the greater underlying issues
Then doing it regardless, and this community seemly agreeing on both points.
Let’s just say, it is illogical.
No, it’s just the situation changing. And the practical issue of principles not mattering anymore.
I am far from thinking Trump is the better option.
But Biden, seemed to make statements, with no wiggle room.
Then he did the opposite.
This did not help my belief in either party doing well by the ‘little’ man.
It sure as hell isn’t “all or nothing”, and with Trump in charge it isn’t working very well…unless you actually approve of the political shenanigans going on.
Worrying about the mouse and ignoring the elephant seems to be how Trump got in.
Please, please understand this is just a rhetorical question.
But by nature I am a devils advocate.
If the situation has changed to the degree, our elected representatives statements no longer matter
Couldn’t the opposition make a case for extreme legal actions. And couldn’t the 50%+1 that voted for them agree