484
The very existence of a presidential pardon is bizarre and an insult to the judicial branch
The power of the pardon should be held by the House of Representatives.
It's was supposed to be the executive's check on the judicial, like a veto but instead of bills passed by congress it's convictions made by a federal court. This was of course back when there was some semblance of judicial independence, nonpartisan interpretations of the constitution, and most people acting on good faith and in the best interests of their constituents or the American population at large.
Sadly, we are now ruled by idiots who have co-opted the government apparatus to serve their own interests.
I kind of agree with other commenters that we should do away with the presidential pardon and replace it with a check that is less likely to be abused for personal gain.
most people acting on good faith and in the best interests of their constituents or the American population at large.
In the bests interests of their constituents aside from women, black people, Chinese people, Japanese people, Muslims (and Sikhs as collateral), Native Americans, Hispanic people, poor people of all ethnicities... but yeah most of the rest of the ~~wealthy, white~~ American population has historically been well-served by electoral politics for sure.
The comment was meant to show contrast between politicians who actually use their position to serve a community at all or in general vs politicians who use their positions purely to enrich themselves, often by defrauding their community.
Your statement detracts from the value and accuracy of their statement without adding anything of value to the discussion. And is thus a bad faith response.
Please try to be more productive with your responses in the future. And maybe actually take the time to listen to what others are saying rather than just looking for opportunities to get on your soapbox.
Thanks.
How can my statement "detract from the [...] accuracy of their statement"? That makes no sense.
I will continue speaking out against the mythology of American exceptionalism regardless of whether or not you, or anyone else, approve of me doing so.
The point is that electoral politics have not delivered any meaningful, long-lasting wins to the populations typically ground under the wheels of America. All wins for those groups have been secured by other forms of action, and the reliance on electoral politics to act as a savior has enabled many of those wins to be degraded in recent decades. Suggesting otherwise is promoting mythology, not facts.
Thanks!
Considering Trump is actually selling pardons ... yea, very odd.
Wow, one whole non-plural republican?
I mean, a small crack is detrimental to the whole. One today, maybe not another for a while, but a crack looks to be forming. Not a lot, but it's something.
Don't believe it to be a crack. Republicans (and Democrats too tbh) are experts at controlled opposition. Oppose or support something just enough to get a headline out of it but never enough to influence the outcome.
It’s enough to tip a house vote, so, yeah, it’s a big deal
Republican Representative Don Bacon of Nebraska
Famous and notable coward Don Bacon grows a single atom of spine, to be surrendered upon his almost immediate retirement.
Fuck him, this is the most he's spoken out as a representative of one of a handful of districts where he'd benefit from a little bipartisanship. And he waits until the end of his career to do the most milquetoast act of defiance he wanders across.
I've met him. He's a nice guy, when he was in the air force at least he tipped pretty well. But he's a coward. And that will be his legacy.
When it comes to pardons, congress should be forced to vote on them, or they lose their voting privilege and access to briefs for a month. If the yeas don't reach 51%, it doesn't go forward. Also, attach their name and vote to the record for the pardons, so that we know who are dipshits.
Right now, pardons are just excuses for bribes and corruption, not a tool for securing justice or national security. Honestly, it feels hard to justify their existence at all.
The bill was introduced by Rep. Johnny Olszewski (D-MD) last December and would allow for a minimum of 20 House members and five senators to call for congressional review of a pardon, which would lead to a 60-day deadline for Congress to nullify that pardon with a two-thirds majority vote – similar to a veto override.
Listen, I think it's great that we're breaking the taboo of pardons being somehow sacrosanct.
But there's exactly one person I can think of that would get 2/3rd of the Congress off their assess to block clemency against.
I'm just sad that the bill isn't written specifically to be able to block trump's pardons.
Anyway to reverse prior ones like the J6 terrorists?
How many crimes have they committed since (besides the crime of attacking our government over being butthurt about losing).
Theoretically. You’d likely need to get a constitutional change pushed through to even achieve the headline, since the presidential pardon is granted by the constitution.
You’d also need to get a law on the books which would allow retroactive revocation of the previous pardons.
That would been to be veto proof, for obvious reasons.
Let me know when they have an amendment to end partisan gerrymandering.
It's all symbolic. A constitutional amendment has zero probability of being ratified, and everyone in DC knows it.
Giving Congress power to do stuff is a waste of fucking time. They have had the power to do many things and don't. Even even is supposedly specifically THEIR power to wield they have let trump use it himself
The pardon power is sort of odd to begin with. It gives not just the executive branch, but a single executive the power to completely override the judicial branch. I do feel there should be a committee or set of guidelines in place, regardless of who holds office.
But what about the Thanksgiving turkey?
this post was submitted on 16 Feb 2026
484 points (100.0% liked)
politics
28473 readers
1930 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS