What is the presidential pardon power for, if not to pardon for political reasons?

The power is intrinsically a political one - a check and balance established to allow the president and his cronies (I'll grant your characterization to a degree) a certain amount of protection from vindictive members of the other two branches, one he's actually SUPPOSED to use to protect his guys.

Had Scooter not been found guilty in a court of law, the President wouldn't have had to use his pardon, so by definition, no matter WHO Bush pardons, his execution of the pardon power puts him "above the law", right? No matter who he pardons, he's making an "end-run" around the justice system. Suggest, then, to be fair, the elimination of the pardon power altogether. To suggest that he's using it for political purposes is to suggest that he's doing something right, something within his constitutional scope of authority.

That leads me to this question: Who could Bush have pardoned and STILL satisfied you? By what gauge would you measure the legitimacy of a President's constitutional "end-run" around the justice system? Public opinion? If so, half the country felt he should have been pardoned. That you're among the other half doesn't make Bush a crook.

Come on. Get over it. We all know the pardon is a political power and he exercised it just as every other president has: to protect his boys.

BSG
big-stupid-guy.blogspot.com

Reply

The content of this field is kept private
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><br> <p> <i> <b> <embed> <img> <blockquote> <span> <strikethrough> <u>
  • Use <!--pagebreak--> to create page breaks.

More information about formatting options

By checking this box you are giving permission for Observer staff to contact you to obtain contact information and permissions required for publication.