Do you believe there should be limits on the President's power to issue pardons for federal crimes?

[lynnwinslow]

I am okay with its use on anything other than official government business. The damn things are intended merely to sign a large quantity of souvenir autographs, not official business. I condemn the use of autopen for any legal documents. Are we clear?

No.
Do you consider Presidential pardons legal documents?

 

[AZRWinger]

So a president should be able to interpret the law any way he wants. Huh.

No, the Constitition gives Congress the primary responsibility for curbing the President’s abuse of power. Democrats have filed more lawsuits against the Trump administration than all other Presidencies combined. It's not because previous Presidential opponents were stupid, they recognized the Constitution specified Congress as the place for policy debates to be settled.

That may be clear to to right wing extremists, but not in reality.

Anyone who disagrees with Democrat talking points is a right wing extremist. The sheer volume of Democrat lawsuits debunks this claim.

There is none.

Denial of the Biden regime's role in the KGB style campaign against its leading political opponent doesn't make it go away. Do some research on Matthew Colangelo's role in the lawfare campaign for a start.

How the Myth of the Coequal Branches Became the Norm

The Constitution is not a system of coequal branches. Congress is the dominant branch of our government. How, then, did this idea become so embedded in our national consciousness?

www.aei.org

I argue that the three branches are not coequal in power.

??? Not what I said at all.

Democrats have filed a tsunami of lawsuits asking for selected judges to second guess the President instead of trying to work through Congress. They wouldn't do that if they thought they could get their way in Congress.

I get that you don’t like it when the judicial system doesn’t lie down for trump.

I don't like it when bitter, deadender Democrats try to use the courts to overturn the election.

Demonstrably true. See trump’s clear threats of “you will be primaried” if you don’t play along with me. Witness the various flip flops of Rubio and Graham and many others who lambasted trump and now praise him faithfully. Please.

I will support your opponent in an upcoming election is a threat that inspires fearful compliance? I hope so, that's how politicians are held accountable. It's something repeated by both sides of the aisle. There is nothing nefarious about it.

As for primary opponents and critics turning into supporters, it happens frequently as positions evolve. For example, Kamala strongly implied Joe Biden was racist for his opposition to busing. But VP Harris told a different story. Was that fear? Certainly not.

What examples?

See above.

You only see a bubble outside of your own. That one is apparently invisible to you. Look closer.

Another playground taunt. Is that the best you can do?

 

[Hamish Howl]

Democrats should be allowed to issue Pardons but not Republicans.

You have officially jumped the shark.

 

[SavannahMann]

Democrats should be allowed to issue Pardons but not Republicans.

There have been decent Presidents from every Party.

 

[SavannahMann]

No, the Constitition gives Congress the primary responsibility for curbing the President’s abuse of power. Democrats have filed more lawsuits against the Trump administration than all other Presidencies combined. It's not because previous Presidential opponents were stupid, they recognized the Constitution specified Congress as the place for policy debates to be settled.

Anyone who disagrees with Democrat talking points is a right wing extremist. The sheer volume of Democrat lawsuits debunks this claim.

Denial of the Biden regime's role in the KGB style campaign against its leading political opponent doesn't make it go away. Do some research on Matthew Colangelo's role in the lawfare campaign for a start.

I argue that the three branches are not coequal in power.

Democrats have filed a tsunami of lawsuits asking for selected judges to second guess the President instead of trying to work through Congress. They wouldn't do that if they thought they could get their way in Congress.

I don't like it when bitter, deadender Democrats try to use the courts to overturn the election.

I will support your opponent in an upcoming election is a threat that inspires fearful compliance? I hope so, that's how politicians are held accountable. It's something repeated by both sides of the aisle. There is nothing nefarious about it.

As for primary opponents and critics turning into supporters, it happens frequently as positions evolve. For example, Kamala strongly implied Joe Biden was racist for his opposition to busing. But VP Harris told a different story. Was that fear? Certainly not.


See above.

Another playground taunt. Is that the best you can do?

A Judge is supposed to make decisions based upon first the Constitution. Second, the Laws which must be in compliance with the Constitution. That is literally their job.

The same people denouncing Judges and Courts now were the same ones cheering when the Courts determined that Joe Biden couldn’t pay of Student Loans by reappropriating money from one congressional purpose to another. They’re the same ones who cheer when a court strikes down a State law that runs afoul of the Second Amendment. There is no claims of Judicial Overreach then. Nobody was screaming will of the voters should be first and foremost.

The problem is that the RW has completely abandoned the Principles that got them into the mainstream in the first place. I even agreed with some of them. The Right is not just off the Rails. You can’t see the rails from where you are demanding that we go even further.

You have become that which you accused the Left of being.

 

[MAGAnificent]

No.
Do you consider Presidential pardons legal documents?

Absolutely. And Trump has not signed any of them with autopen.

 

[lynnwinslow]

Absolutely. And Trump has not signed any of them with autopen.

And how do you know this? Links please.

 

[MAGAnificent]

And how do you know this? Links please.

Since I do not suffer from TDS, I will take him at his word. And there is no need for him to sign legal documents with autopen. He makes a public show of signing them.

 

[lynnwinslow]

Since I do not suffer from TDS, I will take him at his word. And there is no need for him to sign legal documents with autopen. He makes a public show of signing them.

So, you have access to a quote from Trump that says he signed all 1500+ pardons manually. Will you link that please?

 

[MAGAnificent]

So, you have access to a quote from Trump that says he signed all 1500+ pardons manually. Will you link that please?

Silly librul! Trump did not sign 1500 pardons individually. No need to. However, he did sign pardon documents that combined all the J6 individuals. Do you really think 1500 individual documents are required?

 

[lynnwinslow]

Silly librul! Trump did not sign 1500 pardons individually. No need to. However, he did sign pardon documents that combined all the J6 individuals. Do you really think 1500 individual documents are required?

LOL, you gettin dizzy from all that spin? Have a good one!

 

[MAGAnificent]

LOL, you gettin dizzy from all that spin? Have a good one?

But then you are the one spinning. You take care now.

 

[lynnwinslow]

But then you are the one spinning. You take care now.

One more question. How do you think the courts and the prison system were supposed to know which people were granted clemency by Trump?

 

[mike2810]

Silly librul! Trump did not sign 1500 pardons individually. No need to. However, he did sign pardon documents that combined all the J6 individuals. Do you really think 1500 individual documents are required?

/sarcasm
well, if each pardon should stand on its own merits, then yes. 1500 pardon documents should be prepared.
/sarcasm off

imo, Trump should not have pardoned those involved in the Jan6 event. I disagree with Trump that they have been treated badly, and they are patriots.

 

[exoplanet]

There should a limit specifically about pardoning themselves. Also around pardoning non-specific, and/or un-prosecuted crimes. The justice system should be allowed to play out, afterwards if the executive determines that there has been an error, oversight or special need for clemency, only then they can step in. There might be other exceptions to pardon power, but those are the most sorely needed ones.

Overall, I think there are other issues with the executive branch - namely the assumption that the legislative branch can provide a meaningful check on executive overreach, corruption and abuse through its current impeachment rules. It's simply too partisan and/or divided to be effective. Obviously, this points out issues with the functioning of the legislative branch as well. Overall, the equating of money and power with free speech (Citizens United) and personhood with corporations is the root of that evil and that's very hard to counteract.

 

[MAGAnificent]

well, if each pardon should stand on its own merits, then yes. 1500 pardon documents should be prepared.

Tell it to the ghost of Jimmy Carter who pardoned thousands of draft dodgers.

imo, Trump should not have pardoned those involved in the Jan6 event.

I don't think it was a grassroots event. I think there was instigation behind the scenes having nothing to do with Trump. Having said that, I would have done pardons on a case-by-case basis. I would not have pardoned all 1500.

I disagree with Trump that they have been treated badly, and they are patriots.

They were largely extremists from far-right groups like Proud Boys and Q Anon. And the planning started at least two weeks in advance.

 

[mike2810]

Tell it to the ghost of Jimmy Carter who pardoned thousands of draft dodgers.

Jimmy is long gone. Trump is still messing things up.

I don't think it was a grassroots event. I think there was instigation behind the scenes having nothing to do with Trump. Having said that, I would have done pardons on a case-by-case basis. I would not have pardoned all 1500.

case by case, I am ok with. imo, that is not what happened with the 1500.

They were largely extremists from far-right groups like Proud Boys and Q Anon. And the planning started at least two weeks in advance.

pretty much agree.

 

[BabaVoss]

"So a president should be able to interpret the law any way he wants. Huh."

No, the Constitition gives Congress the primary responsibility for curbing the President’s abuse of power.

Glad we agree on that. Too bad they aren't doing it currently.

Democrats have filed more lawsuits against the Trump administration than all other Presidencies combined.

Because he is breaking the law in so many ways.

It's not because previous Presidential opponents were stupid, they recognized the Constitution specified Congress as the place for policy debates to be settled.

You lost me on this one. But where in the Constitution does it say that, exactly?

Anyone who disagrees with Democrat talking points is a right wing extremist.

Do you think that's true? I don't.

The sheer volume of Democrat lawsuits debunks this claim.

The volume does no such thing.
They aren't wrong just because there are a lot of them.
There may well be a good reason for a large volume of lawsuits.
Trump is a criminal after all, and a well known and prolific liar.

Denial of the Biden regime's role in the KGB style campaign against its leading political opponent doesn't make it go away. Do some research on Matthew Colangelo's role in the lawfare campaign for a start.

No thanks. I've heard these wild claims before.
If the trumpers could take it to court they would have.
Trump loves suing people.

I argue that the three branches are not coequal in power.

The three branches of government are designed to function as a system of checks and balances. Agree?
The idea behind such system is that each branch can limit the powers of the other two.
The President veto power over legislation passed by Congress, for example.
Congress can override that veto wait sufficient votes.
The judicial branch can review laws passed by Congress and signed by the President to determine their constitutionality.
Nowhere does it say the President can do whatever he wants.
Each branch has equal status.
We do not have kings.

Democrats have filed a tsunami of lawsuits asking for selected judges to second guess the President instead of trying to work through Congress. They wouldn't do that if they thought they could get their way in Congress.

???

I don't like it when bitter, deadender Democrats try to use the courts to overturn the election.

The only attempted overturn of an election I am aware of is the trump big lie, subsequent insurrection, and the various criminal efforts around access to voter machines.
What are YOU talking about?

I will support your opponent in an upcoming election is a threat that inspires fearful compliance? I hope so, that's how politicians are held accountable. It's something repeated by both sides of the aisle. There is nothing nefarious about it.

When you have the richest man in the world in your pocket - essentially unlimited funds - it a threat to play along - like blackmail.
"Nice office you hold there. Be a shame if something happened to it." Is that really how you hope our system works?
Politicians should be held accountable by the voters.

As I said, your view is only from inside your bubble. You can't see it, but it is there. Look closer.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Jimmy is long gone. Trump is still messing things up.

Matter of opinion. Personally, I am delighted that a populist conservative is taking on the establishment in both parties. I have had it with status quo.

case by case, I am ok with. imo, that is not what happened with the 1500.

It was Trump's original stated intention. he may have then looked at it based on how politicized the prosecutions became, how many were over charged or over sentenced. I still would have gone case by case, with all of that in mind, even if it took months.

 

[AZRWinger]

A Judge is supposed to make decisions based upon first the Constitution. Second, the Laws which must be in compliance with the Constitution. That is literally their job.

Judges are also required to assess the legal aspects of the case such as standing. You remember standing, don't you? It was the Biden election fraudsters best friend for suppressing lawsuits threatening to expose their 2020 election theft. Nonetheless DC district judge Boasberg eagerly vented his personal animus against the Trump administration in the case of 5 illegals held in detention in Texas, unquestionably outside his district. If he can't interpret a simple map why should he be trusted to interpret the Constitution? No reason.

The same people denouncing Judges and Courts now were the same ones cheering when the Courts determined that Joe Biden couldn’t pay of Student Loans by reappropriating money from one congressional purpose to another. They’re the same ones who cheer when a court strikes down a State law that runs afoul of the Second Amendment. There is no claims of Judicial Overreach then. Nobody was screaming will of the voters should be first and foremost.

Let's ignore the violent reaction to the Dobbs decision where Democrat approved thugs including an armed would be assassin besieged Justices homes terrorizing their families. Of course that's minor compared to criticizing District judges for behaving like petty tyrants.

The problem is that the RW has completely abandoned the Principles that got them into the mainstream in the first place. I even agreed with some of them. The Right is not just off the Rails. You can’t see the rails from where you are demanding that we go even further.

Hyperbolic rhetoric with nothing behind it.

You have become that which you accused the Left of being.

Now you resort to playground taunts. Kindly point out where the Right has launched a tsunami of 200+ lawsuits and growing, usurping Congress in favor of appointed judges acting as a super legislature.

 

[LouC]

Any objection to the Democrats rampant abuse of the judiciary as a super legislature by decree is characterized as usurping the rule of law.

That never happened.
So there is that.

That is textbook blind faith.

There was no such Democratic "blind faith" via "textbook" or not.
So there is that.

Can't discuss the issue of mandatory blind faith in judicial rule by decree

Can't rightfully discuss the non existence of something made in a false accusation.
So there is that.

so it's off to an Orange Man Bad rant.

KING MAGAT aka President Donald Trump is a bad president just as he is undeniably a bad human being. Yes, he has proven that he tries to paint his face in an orange tone, for some unfathomable reason.

Rant?

There is nothing wild, nor mindless, nor bombastic, nor false about my impassioned posts about Trump. Well, there might be some exaggerated condemnations or jesting or the making of a few good japes in what I post. But when I post facts and figures etc. you know, serious rhetoric it is not ranting, it is legitimate voice of legitimate concerns.

So there is that.

 

[AZRWinger]

That never happened.
So there is that.

There was no such Democratic "blind faith" via "textbook" or not.
So there is that.

Can't rightfully discuss the non existence of something made in a false accusation.
So there is that.

KING MAGAT aka President Donald Trump is a bad president just as he is undeniably a bad human being. Yes, he has proven that he tries to paint his face in an orange tone, for some unfathomable reason.

Rant?

There is nothing wild, nor mindless, nor bombastic, nor false about my impassioned posts about Trump. Well, there might be some exaggerated condemnations or jesting or the making of a few good japes in what I post. But when I post facts and figures etc. you know, serious rhetoric it is not ranting, it is legitimate voice of legitimate concerns.

So there is that.

Denials, demagoguery and unsupported opinions from you are not discussion

So there is that.

 

[LouC]

Denials, demagoguery and unsupported opinions from you are not discussion

You might have a salient point if I had, which I most certainly have not, actually engaged in what has been falsely accused in that comment.

So there is that.

Yes, there is that, the falsity of your accusatory post above compared to the truth of what I have been posting all along.

Good Day to you!

 

[Mason66]

Trump has granted clemency to over 1500 people, he's been in office for 4 months. Who else comes close?

Clemency Grants by President Donald J. Trump (2025-Present)

www.justice.gov

Biden used his final weeks as commander-in-chief to grant clemency and pardon more than 1,500 individuals.

1500 in a few weeks beats Trumps 1500 in 4 months.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

I’m not certain but at the point a President is obviously selling them it does seem a fair question.