• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Could Trump pardon Kavanaugh?

I

independentusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 10, 2016
Messages
14,607
Reaction score
9,305
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
To many the Kvanaugh placement on SCOTUS is not over. If more witnesses come forward and there is sufficient evidence of wrong doing, could Tump just say i pardon him for anything he did wrong in the past and thus keep him on the court?
 
independentusa said:
To many the Kvanaugh placement on SCOTUS is not over. If more witnesses come forward and there is sufficient evidence of wrong doing, could Tump just say i pardon him for anything he did wrong in the past and thus keep him on the court?
Click to expand...

Only for any federal crimes.
 
Some of these posts just keep getting nuttier and nuttier
 
Assuming it is a federal crime, but a pardon couldn’t keep him on the bench. The Constitution states pardons can’t protect one from impeachment.
 
independentusa said:
To many the Kvanaugh placement on SCOTUS is not over. If more witnesses come forward and there is sufficient evidence of wrong doing, could Tump just say i pardon him for anything he did wrong in the past and thus keep him on the court?
Click to expand...

I think it's going to be a race to the 'you're finished' line between Trump and Kavanaugh... whichever goes first gets to pardon the other.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
Assuming it is a federal crime, but a pardon couldn’t keep him on the bench. The Constitution states pardons can’t protect one from impeachment.
Click to expand...

you think there are 66 senators that would vote to impeach. I think its more likely Slutnick and Avenatti get indicted for perjury and the subornation of perjury than the Sore Losers try to impeach Kavanaugh
 
TurtleDude said:
you think there are 66 senators that would vote to impeach. I think its more likely Slutnick and Avenatti get indicted for perjury and the subornation of perjury than the Sore Losers try to impeach Kavanaugh
Click to expand...

No, I don’t think it will happen. Just answering the OP’s hypothetical question.
 
independentusa said:
To many the Kvanaugh placement on SCOTUS is not over. If more witnesses come forward and there is sufficient evidence of wrong doing, could Tump just say i pardon him for anything he did wrong in the past and thus keep him on the court?
Click to expand...

The "many" you speak of are likely the same people who don't believe the 2000 Presidential Election is over and that Al Gore should be President. Democrats are the very definition of sore losers. They can never accept that other people can rightfully disagree with them and consequently everything that doesn't go to their plan is a travesty and an injustice. Perpetual victors or victims.
 
independentusa said:
To many the Kvanaugh placement on SCOTUS is not over. If more witnesses come forward and there is sufficient evidence of wrong doing, could Tump just say i pardon him for anything he did wrong in the past and thus keep him on the court?
Click to expand...

A pardon only protects someone from Federal prosecution - it has no bearing on an Impeachment. It'd actually encourage an Impeachment, as acceptance of a pardon is considered evidence of guilt.
 
independentusa said:
To many the Kvanaugh placement on SCOTUS is not over. If more witnesses come forward and there is sufficient evidence of wrong doing, could Tump just say i pardon him for anything he did wrong in the past and thus keep him on the court?
Click to expand...
Better question is can Trump reduce the court from 9 to 7?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
 
TurtleDude said:
you think there are 66 senators that woulThatd vote to impeach. I think its more likely Slutnick and Avenatti get indicted for perjury and the subornation of perjury than the Sore Losers try to impeach Kavanaugh
Click to expand...

If Kavanaugh does get impeached, I imagine it'd be because evidence came forth from the withheld documents pertaining to Kavanaugh's White House service that showed he perjured himself during his confirmation hearings.
 
CanadaJohn said:
The "many" you speak of are likely the same people who don't believe the 2000 Presidential Election is over and that Al Gore should be President. Democrats are the very definition of sore losers. They can never accept that other people can rightfully disagree with them and consequently everything that doesn't go to their plan is a travesty and an injustice. Perpetual victors or victims.
Click to expand...

you have to understand why this is-Government is so much more important to Democrats, leftists, progressives etc. to them Government is the source of all that is good. We on the right understand that Government is a necessary evil but we don't tend to be nearly as dependent upon it. The courts are especially important to the left because the courts have been the source of most of the "laws" that the left cherishes. and when the courts are held by those who are not particularly enamored with LW views, the crisis is real for the left.
 
trouble13 said:
Better question is can Trump reduce the court from 9 to 7?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

you mean after the Notorious RBG and Breyer are no longer on it? Hmmm?
 
Cordelier said:
If Kavanaugh does get impeached, I imagine it'd be because evidence came forth from the withheld documents pertaining to Kavanaugh's White House service that showed he perjured himself during his confirmation hearings.
Click to expand...

I hope you lefties try to impeach him over something like that. It will do wonders for the standing of the Democrats. Your beloved party already looks like a pack of whining sore losers combined with a bunch a hysterical radical assholes.
 
TurtleDude said:
you think there are 66 senators that would vote to impeach. I think its more likely Slutnick and Avenatti get indicted for perjury and the subornation of perjury than the Sore Losers try to impeach Kavanaugh
Click to expand...

Who's 'Slutnick'?
 
TurtleDude said:
I hope you lefties try to impeach him over something like that. It will do wonders for the standing of the Democrats. Your beloved party already looks like a pack of whining sore losers combined with a bunch a hysterical radical assholes.
Click to expand...

What's fun is watching you have to whistle past the graveyard of potentially multiple instances of perjury, not giving a damn about whether that actually happened or not if new evidence surfaces, because of your mindless lust for power, utterly devoid of any principle. It'll do wonders for the democrats, if it turns out to be the case, amongst people who value the rule of law and honesty.

I'm not sure it's something you'd understand.
 
TurtleDude said:
I hope you lefties try to impeach him over something like that. It will do wonders for the standing of the Democrats. Your beloved party already looks like a pack of whining sore losers combined with a bunch a hysterical radical assholes.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to take lying to Congress seriously... why is that?
 
independentusa said:
To many the Kvanaugh placement on SCOTUS is not over. If more witnesses come forward and there is sufficient evidence of wrong doing, could Tump just say i pardon him for anything he did wrong in the past and thus keep him on the court?
Click to expand...

Pardon him how? Just a blanket pardon for any all crimes Kavanaugh committed or may have committed prior to his confirmation vote in the Senate?

Strictly speaking the POTUS' pardon power is very broad and largely untested in the courts, so at the very least this POTUS could try it for sure. Whether it'd pass muster is very hard to say. Indeed, it's not even clear that the SCOTUS could even hear the matter -- the pardon would pertain to BK, and the remaining eight justices would likely thus have a professional ethics onus to recuse themselves on account of their having a close personal and/or professional relationship with BK -- and, no matter the outcome, have their decision be accepted by the polity.

The one part of gov't where really dangerous be introducing/increasing the risk of greater animus and acrimony is the SCOTUS. It's bad enough to have those two qualities suffuse the Congress and Executive; the heads of those branches are democratically elected. The Court's members are appointed for life without regard to what the polity preponderantly wants, and makes decisions without regard to what the polity preponderantly wants, and the polity has no way to get rid of SCOTUS justices. Enough public uproar over the Court, its decisions and members is the one thing that could lead to the dissolution of the union.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
What's fun is watching you have to whistle past the graveyard of potentially multiple instances of perjury, not giving a damn about whether that actually happened or not if new evidence surfaces, because of your mindless lust for power, utterly devoid of any principle. It'll do wonders for the democrats, if it turns out to be the case, amongst people who value the rule of law and honesty.

I'm not sure it's something you'd understand.
Click to expand...
I don't think you are really in a position to discuss what I understand. you're just mad that a cheap ploy to slander a good man failed and he is on the court. The charges against him had ZERO supporting evidence and should never have been handled this way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom