Trump says he has nullified Biden's pardons

[Healing]

Always willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the admin, over and over again, despite repeated proof that they don’t deserve it.

How many “oopsie serious constitutional violations” do there have to be for you to get off the fence and admit what’s happening?

And despite the fact the admin is already violating the power of the purse, which is in the constitution, that same poster will absolutely shift the goalpost as soon as his constitutional "red line" is crossed - b/c all prior history suggests there is no "red line".

 

[gtyellowjacket]

Always willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the admin, over and over again, despite repeated proof that they don’t deserve it.

How many “oopsie serious constitutional violations” do there have to be for you to get off the fence and admit what’s happening?

A fair amount. The government screws up on things like this all the time. They screwed up before Trump. They will screw up after Trump. I don't think every little screw-up is going to be a constitutional crisis.

Now if its later proven that the agent responsible knew about the judge's order, worked it up his chain of command and a high level guy said to do it anyway, I'll start worrying.

 

[superrific]

I still can’t believe Roberts was so naive. It was clear he really did think that he was engineering a decision that would calm the constitutional waters. When it was so obvious how easily and quickly Trump in particular could use the ruling to arrogate power to himself.

I think he just wants to retire and be replaced by a conservative -- one of his clerks, maybe.

The entire decision was senseless from top to bottom. Basing a law of immunity on the founders supposed desire for a "bold" executive was nonsense from the outset.

For some reason, he seemed unable to process the fact that Trump was the whole problem. Trump was asking for a reprieve from that which he created. Before Trump, we didn't worry about presidents taking revenge. Then he says, "oh, they are taking revenge on me" when it should have plainly apparent to the justices that they weren't. The entire revenge dynamic was created and sustained by the guy they said was the victim of revenge.

We absolutely need a new court. Well, probably the only way to get our reputation back globally is a new constitution, but we definitely need a new court.

I'm in favor of the next Dem president/Congress doing two things:

A. Restricting the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to its original jurisdiction;
B. Creating a new appeals court, the Court Of Uniform Application, that will have the same appellate jurisdiction as the current Supreme Court.

Hopefully we get there, and hopefully we appoint someone bold enough to do such a thing. If so, I will probably laugh at Gorsuch for a year at least.

 

[superrific]

A fair amount. The government screws up on things like this all the time. They screwed up before Trump. They will screw up after Trump. I don't think every little screw-up is going to be a constitutional crisis.

Now if its later proven that the agent responsible knew about the judge's order, worked it up his chain of command and a high level guy said to do it anyway, I'll start worrying.

Hey, how about this: start worrying now, based on the televised statements of Homan in which he declared his intention not to be bound by court rulings. Oh, and the Attorney General releasing a press release saying pretty much the same.

Then, if what is obviously going to happen doesn't, you can be relieved.

It's mind-boggling that you can see a whole series of related "screw-ups" and chalk them up to mere mistakes, when the screw-ups just happen to correlate closely to what Trump officials are saying, Project 2025, and pretty much the whole campaign.

Here's the thing: liberals were right about Trump in all aspects. What we feared he would do, he is doing (and some stuff we never imagined, which Trump does just to prove he has no bottom). So why would you think us wrong in this instance?

 

[Healing]

Creating a new appeals court, the Court Of Uniform Application, that will have the same appellate jurisdiction as the current Supreme Court.

Would you mind explaining this thought a bit more?

 

[superrific]

Would you mind explaining this thought a bit more?

Hmm, sounds appealing doesn't it? That idea had you at hello. Here's the logic. Article III section 1 provides:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

So Congress can create no courts and have everything decided by the Supremes. Or it can create one layer of courts (that was the case for most of the early years of the Republic). Or it can create two layers of courts (our current system). Or it can create three layers, with our current system feeding into the Court Of Uniform Application just proposed. Note that I called it that because in a very important sense, the role of the Supreme Court is to resolve issues where the federal circuits have reached different conclusions on issues. It's only very recently that the Supreme Court decided that it had to have the final say even when the courts below were all in agreement.

Section 2 provides:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

So those original jurisdiction categories are the types of disputes that the Supreme Court has the inherent power to decide. But the appellate jurisdiction . . . is subject to exceptions and regulations by Congress. And if the regulations are that that the Supreme Court lacks appellate jurisdiction (maybe throw the Supreme Court a bone to solidify the legality here -- give it Indian law, perhaps), FAFO John Roberts.

 

[ZenMode]

I don't even know if autopen is a thing, but it would be an interesting legal situation if it turns out that Biden truly didn't know about some of the pardon/EOs happening. From day one, when he was signing EO's, it seemed like he was more being told what to do than actually determining what was being done.

 

[superrific]

it would be an interesting legal situation

No, it wouldn't. Courts cannot "peer through" the executive branch to judge its operation. If Trump wants to listen to Elon Musk all day long, he can. If Elon wants to shove things in front of his face to sign, and Trump signs them, he can. It is the policies being enjoined, and the legal processes by which those policies have been "implemented."

If Joe Biden came out today and said, "I don't remember who I pardoned and I might not even have known," it would make no difference at all. The pardon was an official act of the office of the president -- an act that cannot be erased (just like Trump's acts).

 

[ZenMode]

No, it wouldn't. Courts cannot "peer through" the executive branch to judge its operation. If Trump wants to listen to Elon Musk all day long, he can. If Elon wants to shove things in front of his face to sign, and Trump signs them, he can. It is the policies being enjoined, and the legal processes by which those policies have been "implemented."

If Joe Biden came out today and said, "I don't remember who I pardoned and I might not even have known," it would make no difference at all. The pardon was an official act of the office of the president -- an act that cannot be erased (just like Trump's acts).

I'm not talking about just not remembering. I'm talking full-on and complete forgery. In other words he, the President, had literally no involvement. If the President is the only one who can pardon, but the had no involvement in, or knowledge of, the signing, that would appear to be a legal issue.

 

[Ramrouser]

Liz Cheney and Adam Kizinger have more “real Republican” in the tip of their pinky fingers than you or I or most other people. To say that there were not real Republicans on the January 6 investigative committee is both disingenuous and dishonest.

They were fully cooperating with the Dems on the committee in putting on the carefully and professionally choreographed show. It wasn't a real hearing with examination and cross examination by the members.

 

[finesse]

I'm not talking about just not remembering. I'm talking full-on and complete forgery. In other words he, the President, had literally no involvement. If the President is the only one who can pardon, but the had no involvement in, or knowledge of, the signing, that would appear to be a legal issue.

And if a frog had wings , he wouldn't bump his ass every time he jumps. Good luck with this hypothesis.

 

[Ramrouser]

Cheney and Kinzinger.

This is the Catch-22, though, right? You don't consider them "real Republicans" if they stand up to Trump. So, you won't consider any committee that stands up to Trump as having any "real Republicans." Thus, any committee that rebukes Trump can be ignored because it was a partisan witch hunt. Have I got that right?

Sure, there could have been real Republicans on the committee that "stood up" to Trump. These Republicans would have cross examined the Dems' witnesses, called witnesses of their own and introduced exculpatory evidence. Did the dynamic duo do any of that? No. They worked hand-in-hand with the Chairman in putting on the Soviet show trial.

 

[evrheel]

Sure, there could have been real Republicans on the committee that "stood up" to Trump. These Republicans would have cross examined the Dems' witnesses, called witnesses of their own and introduced exculpatory evidence. Did the dynamic duo do any of that? No. They worked hand-in-hand with the Chairman in putting on the Soviet show trial.

Oh man, you gotta take this act on the road! you could make a killing!!

 

[superrific]

Sure, there could have been real Republicans on the committee that "stood up" to Trump. These Republicans would have cross examined the Dems' witnesses, called witnesses of their own and introduced exculpatory evidence. Did the dynamic duo do any of that? No. They worked hand-in-hand with the Chairman in putting on the Soviet show trial.

What the fuck are you talking about? Have you ever watched a hearing?

That you are talking about exculpatory evidence gives your whole game away. Committee hearings are not trials. The committee's goal was to uncover what happened on J6 and leading up to it. That's what hearings are for. That you're talking about "exculpatory evidence" -- well, it explains why you think everything was weaponized. You're the one making everything into a public trial. Liz Cheney was just trying to figure out what happened and prevent it from happening again. She didn't, by the way, hate Trump until J6. In fact, she was a supporter. It was J6 that turned her, because it turns out that she alone in your caucus was willing to put country before party.

Anyway, Kevin McCarthy had a chance to put people on the committee. He chose not to.

 

[BlooVooDoo]

Oh man you gotta take your act on the road, you could make a killing!

Having long fallen out of favor, roadside freak shows are ripe for a comeback.

 

[Mundial]

No, it wouldn't. Courts cannot "peer through" the executive branch to judge its operation. If Trump wants to listen to Elon Musk all day long, he can. If Elon wants to shove things in front of his face to sign, and Trump signs them, he can. It is the policies being enjoined, and the legal processes by which those policies have been "implemented."

If Joe Biden came out today and said, "I don't remember who I pardoned and I might not even have known," it would make no difference at all. The pardon was an official act of the office of the president -- an act that cannot be erased (just like Trump's acts).

I was waiting for this.

 

[CFordUNC]

They were fully cooperating with the Dems on the committee in putting on the carefully and professionally choreographed show. It wasn't a real hearing with examination and cross examination by the members.

You know that every single other Republican that was invited to join the J6 investigative committee rejected the invitation, right? Wonder why that might be? Surely the events of January 6, 2021 were worthy of a bipartisan effort to investigate, yes?

Just because you don't like the makeup of the committee or because you don't like the subject matter being investigated, doesn't not make it a "real hearing."

 

[Ramrouser]

Just stop with the false narrative that this was a peaceful group singing kumbaya and walking around praying for the successful transition of power after trump lost the election.

Where in the constitution does it describe "real republicans"? I'm sure the founding fathers never had any concept of maga.

The investigation wasn't a trial, each defendant had an individual trial, correct?

These people had legal representation in court, is there a requirement of the parties represented by the investigators? Aren't investigators supposed to be I unbiased?

Isn't there protocol for using the auto pen? It wouldn't make sense that it could be used without the President's approval, presence when used, and oversight. Otherwise it would raise question to it being used in any circumstances.

If Trump is serious about this auto pen/pardon issue then he would have to have a serious, high ranking whistleblower who has given sworn testimony that the pardons were issued without the knowledge or consent of the President. Pretty unlikely but you never know. Things are a bit crazy on the Dems' side these days. Schumer has even cancelled his book tour fearing the leftist protestors.

 

[superrific]

I'm not talking about just not remembering. I'm talking full-on and complete forgery. In other words he, the President, had literally no involvement. If the President is the only one who can pardon, but the had no involvement in, or knowledge of, the signing, that would appear to be a legal issue.

I promise you, it is not a "legal issue." And if it ever was, Trump v. US was clear that it is not.

If you are talking about a forgery coming out of the office of the president: the pardon stands, and the forger is subject to criminal liability. That is, if some staffer signed a pardon with Biden's name, and Biden never knew anything about it, the pardon still stands. The courts are not going to peer into the executive branch. It's the same way that a pardon received through a bribe stands, even if the bribe could be proven. Again, if there was any doubt, the Supreme Court laid it to bed.

If you are talking about a forgery that did not come from the president's office: well, it's a forgery and it has no legal effect, full stop.

This is a decided issue. I'm not talking about it any more. If you need to create for yourself some weird identity as a "person who knows about law" despite not having studied it, practiced it, read about it, read judicial opinions and statutes -- do what you're going to do. I've explained the law clearly and succinctly and I won't do it again. You can deny or accept. Your choice.

 

[Ramrouser]

You know that every single other Republican that was invited to join the J6 investigative committee rejected the invitation, right? Wonder why that might be? Surely the events of January 6, 2021 were worthy of a bipartisan effort to investigate, yes?

Just because you don't like the makeup of the committee or because you don't like the subject matter being investigated, doesn't not make it a "real hearing."

Only after Nancy issued unprecedented vetos of elected Republican members SHE felt weren't worthy of being on the committee. The Republicans refused to serve in protest. In retrospect, I think that was a mistake but that doesn't excuse the Dems from their conduct.