Biden plans a bipartisan commission to advise on court packing and other reforms

[hedrick]

Ford wanted to put Watergate in the past. I think Biden will have the same problem. He will be concerned about health care and other things, and won't want controversy over Trump to distract. If I were in his position I would probably not pardon Trump and his associates, but I would tell prosecutors that they should only prosecute clear and substantial crimes, not paperwork errors or other process crimes. But that's only relevant if Trump doesn't pardon himself.

 

[durangodawood]

You're speaking of a moral or theological definition. But the relevant one for this discussion is the legal definition.

Legally, the president can pardon someone for all acts they have committed, with no requirement to list the acts or have repentance. That was done for Nixon. There's no reason it can't be done for Trump.

Of course a presidential pardon won't affect state prosecutions.

Yes but we were discussing a forward acting pardon. Thats the idea I was responding to in the first post of mine you quoted.

 

[JSRG]

Or perhaps grant statehood to D.C. and Puerto Rico, it's only fair. Or divide a large state like California, this would give it more senators.

While Washington D.C. would be the most thoroughly Democratic state in the country (though it's questionable whether it's constitutional to make it into a state given its special status), Puerto Rico would most likely be a swing state.

The thing about Puerto Rico, though, is that it doesn't seem to particularly want statehood on the whole. Pro-statehood proponents will happily point to referendums showing overwhelming support for statehood... what they don't mention is that those referendums only had about a quarter of the population vote in them because those opposing statehood boycotted it.

For the record, it should be further noted that the two parties in charge of Puerto Rico are not the Democrats and Republicans, but the PNP and PPD. Neither exactly map to the Republicans or Democrats. I do not think it's likely that the two political parties that have been running things for decades would suddenly vanish into the ether upon statehood and be replaced by Republicans and Democrats. More likely they'd stay in power and people elected to the House/Senate would be from those parties.

As for California, that's a bit of a gamble. You need to remember that while it is overall a liberal stronghold, California is actually rather mixed in terms of Democratic and Republican areas. It's just that the Democratic areas, most notably Los Angeles, are super-populated which allows them to control the state as a whole. Split up California the wrong way and you could end up with either no functional change (i.e. you get 1 Democrat and 1 Republican) or Republicans actually gaining Senators. Also, is this something California itself is okay with? The Constitution does specify that the state legislature needs to agree to being split up--I'm not sure how popular an idea that is in California itself.

 

[Andrewn]

"The legal and constitutional ability of a president to pardon himself (self-pardon) is an unresolved issue. During the Watergate scandal, President Nixon's lawyer suggested that a self-pardon would be legal, while the Department of Justice issued a memorandum opinion on August 5, 1974, stating that a president cannot pardon himself.[23] The 1974 memo laid out a scenario in which, under the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the president could declare himself unable to perform his duties and could appoint the vice president as acting president. The acting president could then pardon the president and "thereafter the president could either resign or resume the duties of his office."[23]"

Federal pardons in the United States - Wikipedia.

Self-Pardons: The President Can't Pardon Himself, So Why Do People Think He Can?

 

[jayem]

I’ve always assumed that Trump can and will pardon himself. I don’t see anything that would prohibit that.

The President's power to grant pardons or commute sentences only applies to federal crimes. S(he) cannot do the same for anyone convicted of a state crime. Only a state governor can do that.

SCOTUS has ruled that a sitting President is immune from prosecution in a civil case related to his official duties. (Nixon v. Fitzgerald.) But AFAIK, the Court hasn't ruled if there's any immunity from federal criminal charges. I believe it's just been the policy of the Justice Dept. not to criminally prosecute a President in office. Any action against the President is left up to Congress's impeachment authority. I'm not an attorney, but it seems to me that theoretically, a President could indicted and prosecuted by a state. Assuming there's evidence that a criminal violation of state law occurred.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Ethically, yes. But the constitution gives him blanket authority to pardon. I don't see anything to stop him. I doubt the current Supreme Court would stop it, but frankly I'm not sure any would.

See #47.

 

[hedrick]

See #47.

I don't see that that post changes my conclusion. The one credible objection was Self-Pardons: The President Can't Pardon Himself, So Why Do People Think He Can?. However I wonder whether textualist Supreme Court justices would agree.

 

[OddityCrisis]

If you're going to change the rules of the game, why should we continue to play a rigged game?

Court packing will invariably lead to secession.

 

[SimplyMe]

If you're going to change the rules of the game, why should we continue to play a rigged game?

Court packing will invariably lead to secession.

It seems worth pointing out again that Republicans have won the popular vote in 1 of the last 7 Presidential elections, yet have nominated 6 of the 9 Supreme Court justices. Of course, that is the way the "rules" work. At the same time, Sen. McConnell not only gamed the rules, he changed rules to get an extra nomination away from the Democrats.

So what is this about a rigged game? You seem to be saying it is ok for Republicans to "rig" the game in favor of a minority of Americans but not for Democrats to do the same if they are elected by a majority.

 

[KCfromNC]

So what is this about a rigged game? You seem to be saying it is ok for Republicans to "rig" the game in favor of a minority of Americans but not for Democrats to do the same if they are elected by a majority.

But but but ThE Us IsNt A DeMoCraCy1!1!!1

 

[Andrewn]

It seems worth pointing out again that Republicans have won the popular vote in 1 of the last 7 Presidential elections, yet have nominated 6 of the 9 Supreme Court justices.

It seems that only justices Thomas and Alito consistently vote the Republican Party line. And justices Breyer and Kegan consistently vote the Democratic Party line. Hopefully the other 5 justices can provide balance by interpreting the law without sticking to a party line. Voting on the ACA will be the ultimate test.