Bicycle Bill wrote: ↑The REAL insult is that since ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920, not a single one of the seventeen men who preceded Trump had already pardoned Ms. Anthony.
-"BB"-
You just don’t get it BB. No it wasn’t an insult that nobody has pardoned her - it was RESPECT.
Yeah, those are either all or mostly pardons he issued in the previous four years - not today.
And Susan B Anthony would spit on his (or any other) pardon as it so justly deserves.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
It has been a while since I really reviewed the reasons pardons are (and can be) granted, but as I recall one was to address a gross miscarriage of justice. In the case of Susan Be Anthony, she voted in violation of the law--a bad la, but the law nonetheless. And I think a good case can be made for the enforcement of that law is a gross miscarriage of justice which should be addressed. She may have said "stuff your pardon", but I see no disrespect to her in recognizing that the law at that time was bad and should not have been enforced.
It’s about more than the unjust law she disobeyed - it’s about the injustice of her conviction after a trial that denied her a voice and due process because she was a woman. The whole thing was a corruption, and acceptance of a pardon assumes acknowledgement of guilt and a just conviction.
There is very good reason that no right thinking President in 100 years attempted such a disrespectful act against a woman not even alive to defend her honor by refusing it, as she doubtless would have done.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
I defer to your knowledge of the trial procedures with Anthony, and see your point. But let me posit a hypothetical: suppose a US citizen was detained as an enemy combatant without trial (like Jose Padilla was) and the detention was upheld through the Circuit court (unlike Padilla) and the USSC refused to hear it (for whatever reason). At that point, only a pardon could get him released--would acceptance of that pardon be an admission of guilt? I doubt Samuel Mudd thought that it was when he was pardoned by Andrew Johnson. Absent a pardon, what could be done to recognize and expose the gross miscarriage of justice?
Regardless of the rights and wrongs of pardoning Susan B Anthony (and I am convinced by BSG's points) there is no doubt in my mind that Trump was driven by nothing but pandering, and not by any conviction that SBA was unduly wronged.
I think that hypothetical situation justifies a pardon without conferring the taint of guilt, but the Susan B. Anthony situation is entirely different. Live person unjustly incarcerated versus long-dead feminist suffragist icon at no peril of loss of liberty? To have her now forever associated with the taint of a self confessed pussy grabber by imposing an unwanted and unnecessary pardon issued for the personal aggrandizement and political advantage of said pussy grabber?
It is loathesome.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
He commuted the sentence of Kwame Kilpatrick. Those two are birds of a feather. Including the fact that they (at least had) legions of followers that were able to ignore reality and support a con man.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
He commuted the sentence of Kwame Kilpatrick. Those two are birds of a feather. Including the fact that they (at least had) legions of followers that were able to ignore reality and support a con man.
Clearly I hadn't been paying attention - the name Kwame Kilpatrick meant nothing to me. I had to look him up - I know that's a Wikipedia link but it's enough for me. He may be one of the few men around who rivals Trump in his overall turdishness.
The irony is there is a shitload of current Trump supporters who could not understand how so many people could not understand that Kilpatrick had so many supporters when he was so obviously a corrupt grifter.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
(Reuters)
Michael Cohen said that, after knowing Donald Trump for over a decade, he concluded the former president might have already pardoned himself.
Donald Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen said that the ex-president might have issued secret pardons to himself and his children during his tenure, which he will reveal if he is indicted.
Talking to MSNBC, Mr Cohen said he believes Mr Trump has already pardoned himself, his lawyer Rudy Giuliani, and his children in what he termed as “pocket pardons” to save themselves from criminal conviction if needed.
The former president had issued a slew of pardons in his final days of office. He granted clemency to 70 people and commuted the sentences of a further 73 people, excluding himself and his family by using his presidential powers. But Mr Trump not issuing pardons for himself and his family came as a surprise to many experts and politicians, given that the Trump family faces legal troubles more than any other presidential family in American history.
According to reports by Reuters and The New York Times, Mr Trump had said to his aides that he wanted “preemptive” pardons that are issued before any charges are filed. The report said, citing sources, Mr Trump’s “level of interest in pardoning himself goes beyond idle musings.”
Mr Cohen wondered why the former president did not pardon himself, saying that the one thing Mr Trump fears the most is serving a jail term. "I kind of think I figured it out," he said to MSNBC host Alex Witt. "I think Donald Trump actually has given himself the pardon. I think he also has pocket pardons for his children and for Rudy and it's already stashed somewhere that, if and when they do get indicted and that there's a criminal conviction, federal criminal conviction brought against him, that he already has the pardons in hand."
He said he reached the conclusion after some research over the legality of pardons being disclosed to the people and press. The estranged former lawyer of Mr Trump said he could not find anything in the Constitution that said he has to make the pardons public.
By the way, Gob (or any other native Brit-speakers out there), why is it that when British newspapers like the Guardian, the Independent, or even the Times itself use the abbreviations of 'Mr' or 'Mrs', they do not put the period at the end of the abbreviation?
-"BB"-
Yes, I suppose I could agree with you ... but then we'd both be wrong, wouldn't we?
It wouldn't surprise me (I fully expected those pardons to be issued before he lef office), but as I understand pardons, they would have to be accepted, likely while he is president. Hence, I do not think there are pocket pardons that his family is not aware of. It would be an interesting court challenge to see if he actually could pardon himself; I am inclined to say no, but who knows how the courts would rule.
By the way, Gob (or any other native Brit-speakers out there), why is it that when British newspapers like the Guardian, the Independent, or even the Times itself use the abbreviations of 'Mr' or 'Mrs', they do not put the period at the end of the abbreviation?
For some reason British style guides (the Guardian one is available on-line and is well worth a look) recommend losing the period (or full stop if you prefer) on such abbreviations. I'm not sure of the logic. There was maybe 10 or 20 years ago (which means that it was at least 35 years ago) a move to banish punctuation from place names. I'm not sure how well it took. King's Lynn retains its apostrophe, King Henrys Walk, near where I used to live in N London, does not. But in the US punctuation has been banned from all but five place names (e.g., Martha's Vineyard is still OK). There is an ANSI Standard for naming places: ANSI INCITS 446-2008 (Identifying Attributes for Named Physical and Cultural Geographic Features (Except Roads and Highways) of the United States, Its Territories, Outlying Areas, and Freely Associated Areas, and the Waters of the Same to the Limit of the Twelve-Mile Statutory Zone. Available from the ANSI store.
The banning of apostrophes and other punctuation in names may be due to computer processing. A misplaced ampersand or apostrophe could reek havoc on unsuspecting (and poorly coded) interfaces when attempting to return a query or surface information to the end-user. Purely speculation on my part, but I still use the Oxford comma as well, so consider the source (code).
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”