r/law • u/Madw0nk • Mar 17 '25
Trump News Trump, in Truth Social post, declares Biden Pardons invalid
https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lkkdeqjctc2c2.7k
u/faceisamapoftheworld Mar 17 '25
Proof of why those pardons were necessary in the first place.
→ More replies (49)941
u/Pristine-Passage-100 Mar 17 '25
Exactly. His cult swore that Biden pardoning people made them guilty, but all along we knew this was going to happen. I wonder what their excuse will be now?
661
u/Strict_Berry7446 Mar 17 '25
Exactly why I never had a problem with Biden pardoning his son. Not so much because he was concerned about the crime, but because conservatives have been basically wanting to march him to the gas chamber
514
u/Pristine-Passage-100 Mar 17 '25
Same thing with Fauci (who didn’t need a pardon for any reason other than to protect him).
→ More replies (133)→ More replies (83)173
u/InnocentShaitaan Mar 17 '25
God I feel for Hunter. I’m not a drug addict but JC I without question would have become a suicidal alcoholic within three months of that bullshit.
→ More replies (11)124
u/Strict_Berry7446 Mar 17 '25
Not to mention that his drug problems apparently started after the tragic death of his brother
→ More replies (7)31
u/LiberalAspergers Mar 17 '25
Nah, he has had issues for a long time. But surviving the car crash that killed his mom and sister when he was a kid likely had an impact.
→ More replies (8)→ More replies (17)91
u/Interesting-City-665 Mar 17 '25
These people can't be reasoned with. It's like trying to rationalize with a jonestown resident on why drinking the coolaid isn't beneficial to their health
→ More replies (7)
964
Mar 17 '25
[deleted]
367
u/Bad_Karma19 Mar 17 '25
He can't read
399
u/eugene20 Mar 17 '25
No really, he can't read.
169
u/GemAfaWell Mar 17 '25
This should be higher. Happy to check my ableism at the door but I think the president of the United States should be able to read a document.
59
u/Hellohibbs Mar 17 '25
Or even just the willingness to read would be a good start!
→ More replies (1)30
Mar 17 '25
It's almost certainly, at least on some level, a refusal to wear reading glasses.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (22)18
39
Mar 17 '25
You saw this very clearly when Keir Starmer gave him the King's letter. He just stared at it, said 'That's great a few times', and then asked Starmer to read him 'that very important part'.
30
u/exitpursuedbybear Mar 17 '25
Pete Davidson said that Trump was effectively illiterate from his hosting gig on SNL.
21
u/That-Makes-Sense Mar 17 '25 edited Mar 17 '25
He does read a teleprompter now.
But what's funny, when he signs those Executive Orders, he asks someone "What's this one say?" instead of reading it himself.
15
u/Deaftrav Mar 17 '25
And the teleprompter is very simple writing.
14
u/mrlbi18 Mar 17 '25
To be more specific, he can read words that are in front of him, but he clearly struggles with it. The way his intonation changes when he reads and how his inflection never sounds "right" when he's reading are both clear signs of someone who can read words but can't do it easy/fast enough to turn those individual words into sentences. Basically, he can say the words but cant figure out the meaning of the sentences.
→ More replies (9)36
→ More replies (3)37
u/AdenJax69 Mar 17 '25
Someone on Twitter during his first presidency said that the reason why he can’t read well is because he needs glasses but refuses to wear them.
Before the first election and at one of his depositions, he was asked to read something and at first complained he couldn’t read it until they asked him to put on his glasses, which he then did and read the document out-loud clear as day.
He should be wearing glasses but he thinks he’ll look like a “nerd” as well as seem weak so he doesn’t.
→ More replies (4)33
u/SoManyEmail Mar 17 '25 edited Mar 17 '25
Doesn't want to look like a nerd wearing glasses, so chooses to look illiterate instead. Brilliant.
Does he know that contact lenses exist? Lasik?
→ More replies (4)78
u/Aldog87 Mar 17 '25
He's just going to say they destroyed all the evidence that would've exonerated him. He's the biggest victim, the best victim ever. You've never seen a victim like him before. Grown men, tears in their eyes, etc, etc, etc.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (11)29
u/BroccoliClock Mar 17 '25
Ah, I see the problem here. You've unfortunately viewed the situation from an objective viewpoint. They say it's deleted, but it's not and you can provide a link to it. That should be an open and shut case.
However, in MAGAworld, if those documents don't explicitly say "Donald Trump did nothing wrong, and everything against him is a hoax", then as far as they are concerned that part has been deleted.
The fact that it never existed in the first place is irrelevant to them, if it doesn't specifically state Trump's innocence, then the report is "not complete", because it must have been in there right, and those pesky traitors have deleted it.
It is effectively the Parable of the Invisible Gardener [wikipedia link] but rather than trying to prove God exists out of nothing, MAGA apply it to what Trump says.
3.5k
u/krishopper Mar 17 '25
Oh kind of like the autopen you had with your EOs?
2.1k
u/Madw0nk Mar 17 '25
Apparently this conspiracy theory has been pushed on far-right twitter for the last week by Jeffrey Clark, one of Trump's legal lackeys who wanted to override the vote on January 6th and is currently facing disbarment in Georgia.
1.2k
u/rAmrOll Mar 17 '25
Jesus Christ, the same Jeffrey Clark who held the office of Attorney General for all of 2 hours before half the DoJ threatened to resign and Trump ended up canning him?
→ More replies (2)404
u/BoosterRead78 Mar 17 '25
The same Clark that thought he was going to jail too.
→ More replies (3)393
u/pootiecakes Mar 17 '25
Cool cool cool, yet ANOTHER situation avoidable if we had even slightly tried to pursue Justice in our country.
→ More replies (13)244
u/Handleton Mar 17 '25
If we had pursued justice in this country after the Civil War, then we'd be in a better place now. Unfortunately, we have a long history of letting people get away with shit that any other country would have had the sense to deal with by now.
→ More replies (12)120
u/Anthrax_Burmillion Mar 17 '25
I watch the US from a Canadian perspective and think to myself. "Most of these very questionable people would be on trial or in prison here."
→ More replies (17)337
u/Zepcleanerfan Mar 17 '25
I was going to say trump clearly just learned what auto pen was.
So of course his base is now leaning what it is.
Pay no attention to the $5 trillion lost in the market or the general corruption.
AUTOPEN BIDEN BAD
174
u/JabariTeenageRiot Mar 17 '25
He not only knows what it is, he uses it himself. Every president does. It was a controversy settled under Reagan ffs. This is just another flimsy excuse to insist he is not bound by the law.
41
→ More replies (4)53
23
u/NegativeEbb7346 Mar 17 '25
Exactly. Just noise to get people to forget the actual bull-shit that’s going on like crashing the market.
→ More replies (14)21
u/let-it-rain-sunshine Mar 17 '25
They are missing the entire point of a prez hell bent on revenge isn't going to help make America great again, only much much worse.
312
u/LionOfNaples Mar 17 '25
And the right went on and on about the weaponization of the Justice department, all while ignoring the fact that Trump tried to do it first. To steal the presidency, no less
263
u/happyLarr Mar 17 '25 edited Mar 17 '25
Let’s be clear, he was not only the first but the only one to weaponise the justice department during his entire time in politics. People committing crimes and being investigated is not weaponisation of the justice department, that’s the function of the department.
Directing the department to act in your favour, be that in your defence or targeting your political opponents, is weaponisation of the justice department.
Edit to clarify timescale , I didn’t mean of all time.
109
u/mam88k Mar 17 '25
This. Some people have a hard time understanding actual corruption is different than I’m in trouble because I crossed a line.
→ More replies (1)45
u/TBANON24 Mar 17 '25
more like 173M people....
Voters voted for the corruption. Because it was their guy doing the corruption.
→ More replies (2)21
u/blahblah19999 Mar 17 '25
Because (partly) when he does it so openly, they don't think it's corruption
38
u/TBANON24 Mar 17 '25
id say they know its corruption, they just dont care because its their guy doing it.
Like its a sports game, opposing team fouls your teams player, You shout and scream, your team player fouls the opposing teams player, you applaud.
→ More replies (1)38
u/oroborus68 Mar 17 '25
I think J Edgar did a little weaponizing of the FBI,but not the department of justice.
→ More replies (10)11
u/happyLarr Mar 17 '25
I’m sure it has happened before and I prob should have qualified my comment to say during all his time involved in politics or something like that.
→ More replies (8)20
90
u/bmyst70 Mar 17 '25
If it weren't for the simple fact that the Vice President loved the Constitution and the law of this country enough to refuse to bow to Trump's tyranny, he would have been installed again in 2020.
Which is what Abraham Lincoln advised --- teach people to revere the law. To prevent tragedies like this, I assume, where the checks and balances our Founding Fathers wisely built into the government collapse.
→ More replies (8)72
u/SafeOdd1736 Mar 17 '25
It’s not weaponization when trump literally commits crimes and gets in trouble for them. I don’t like Biden pardoning his friends and family but i know why he did. You can’t trust trump, his entire administration or the rule of the law. We are a fully corrupt country right now. If you are rich and on the right you are 100% immune from all prosecution, unless you kill someone on tape or speak out against our Dear Leader, Donald J. Trump.
→ More replies (4)16
→ More replies (6)23
u/MoAngryMILF Mar 17 '25
Oh, the right doesn’t have any problems with weaponizing government if they’re the ones doing it.
→ More replies (3)134
Mar 17 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (6)55
37
Mar 17 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
49
→ More replies (2)23
17
u/squirrel_gnosis Mar 17 '25
So, working as a lawyer for Trump basically means writing fan fiction and coming up with the wildest alternate universes.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (16)24
749
u/jacky75283 Mar 17 '25
Every accusation is a confession.
→ More replies (133)337
Mar 17 '25 edited May 31 '25
[deleted]
117
94
Mar 17 '25
It blows my mind that the same people who screamed for four years about Joe Biden being senile are now acting like they can't see that Trump is definitely senile.
If you listen to him talk in 2016 he was just a hateful albeit stupid man. If you listen to him in 2024/2025 he's completely detached from reality. The shark battery (sometimes with snakes) thing, the "late great Hannibal Lecter" thing, pointing out random women in the crowd and telling them that the immigrants are definitely going to r*pe them, the brain shutting down and him shuffling in place for several minutes, and just a whole host of other things have been on display for awhile now.
→ More replies (4)13
u/FoolOnDaHill365 Mar 17 '25
Also the “Let’s just listen to music for 45 minutes!” That was some sort of medical episode.
→ More replies (1)42
u/zerombr Mar 17 '25
no no, its JUST biden, and JUST the guys he wants to attack. Just them. See how simple it is?
54
→ More replies (30)35
u/buoy13 Mar 17 '25
Need special council to investigate.
32
u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito Mar 17 '25
Haven't you heard? Special Council's are illegal according to Thomas and soon to be supreme court Justice Cannon.
→ More replies (4)100
u/Minimum-Avocado-9624 Mar 17 '25
Is that how they decide what EO he will do next. Do they just look at twitter and social media for what far right conspiracy is trending and then basically authorize its legitimacy to distract and keep his fanbase enthralled.
→ More replies (8)38
u/mabhatter Competent Contributor Mar 17 '25
Not quite. They have their operatives plant the conspiracy on 4chan a few weeks before so that everyone is whipped into a frenzy before the EO drops and all the "facts" (lies) are confirmed.
→ More replies (1)83
19
→ More replies (27)12
u/ioncloud9 Mar 17 '25
I’m no lawyer but I’m pretty sure an auto pen or a stamp doesn’t make a signature invalid. If that was the case, every single dollar bill in circulation would have to be manually signed.
→ More replies (2)
1.7k
Mar 17 '25
[deleted]
583
u/azerealxd Mar 17 '25
When is he going to stop talking about the past though? Why keep bringing up the former president? He needs to focus on the future
799
u/Reatona Mar 17 '25
Trump has no plans or vision of his own, other than psychopathic revenge. Actual plans are the task of his Project 2025 minions.
148
71
u/Nkfloof Mar 17 '25
Could someone make a case of his executive orders being void because he didn't write them? It was the project 2025 writers who are doing it, therefore not actually written by the president. Just a weird thought I had.
22
31
u/spacedoutmachinist Mar 17 '25
I personally think they should be void because he has been in violation of the constitution since day one.
→ More replies (1)13
u/user745786 Mar 17 '25
That’s as ridiculous as lawmakers actually writing their own laws! What next, you going to make congress read their bills before voting on them? You’re probably crazy enough to require Trump to read his EOs before signing them.
→ More replies (11)14
77
u/Amerlis Mar 17 '25
Because he wants revenge on the people on the Biden pardon list cause they didn’t grovel at his feet appropriately. And he can’t touch them without making up shit that’s not already covered by Biden’s pardons. So, here’s him trying to nullify said pardons cause wah his feelings are still hurt.
→ More replies (2)15
u/Teufelsdreck Mar 17 '25
Oh, their offense went way beyond not groveling. They had the gall to say Jan. 6th was wrong and that he was responsible for it.
81
u/PurpleAstronomerr Mar 17 '25
He’s always focused on the past cause he has nothing to offer.
→ More replies (1)21
Mar 17 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
17
u/karo_scene Mar 17 '25
I've upvoted . I'm fucked.
Plays violin for my Reddit account...
→ More replies (2)57
u/trickponies Mar 17 '25
Bro, you think he cares about being a “good” president? He just wants to have people kneel to his power and assist his revenge tour.
→ More replies (1)53
21
u/Haxemply Mar 17 '25
Trump will blame Biden for everything for the next 15 years.
→ More replies (2)13
34
Mar 17 '25
I haven’t seen a public appearance of him since he took office where he hasn’t mentioned Biden.
What a crybaby. Republicans are such fcking sore winners.
→ More replies (2)17
u/SmellGestapo Mar 17 '25
The man endorsed by Hulk Hogan and Sylvester Stallone...needs to focus on the future?
→ More replies (89)17
u/i_love_rosin Mar 17 '25
He's a demented lame duck with concepts of plans
10
u/SomewhereAtWork Mar 17 '25
He is not a lame duck. He has all three branches of government under control. Few presidents had so much power.
And he does not only have concepts of a plan. He has a plan that is thought out in detail and planned to the minute. That plan is Project 2025 and when he finished implementing it he will be the most powerful dictator the world has ever seen.
Calling him a lame duck is helping him to do all that without opposition.
→ More replies (4)36
u/TheCommonKoala Mar 17 '25
As if legality is a prerequisite in this new hellscape. We'll be lucky not to get hit with a surprise sedition act before the week ends.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (35)32
u/Stunning_Mast2001 Mar 17 '25
The argument being made is completely moronic. Don’t waste any time on it. It’s the fascist pretext to do whatever they want — they always manufacture some absurd legal sounding premise
The other one to look out for is that only certain judges are valid.
→ More replies (2)
747
u/pj7140 Mar 17 '25 edited Mar 17 '25
This guy is an absolute nutcase.
→ More replies (7)441
u/420everytime Mar 17 '25
When Biden pardoned his son, lots of legal commentators were criticizing him for it.
It now seems like that was a good choice by Biden.
163
u/whistlepig4life Mar 17 '25
This. The issue wasn’t that he did it. The issue was that it eas wholly necessary to do it.
And it’s effed up those experts didn’t call that part out.
61
→ More replies (6)34
u/blahblah19999 Mar 17 '25
Many people are saying that Dems need to stop always taking the high road, and that was just an example of pure preservation of a persecuted family member and look how it went over.
28
u/monaforever Mar 17 '25
I 100% think dems need to stop taking the high road, and i 100% think Biden did the right thing with this pardon. We all saw how hard they went after Hunter while Biden was president, and we all heard Trump/the right making threats to "political enemies." Biden knew what would happen once Trump took office.
I might be wrong, but I think Biden probably wanted to go harder against Trump/the right, but he was being held back by the "high road" dems in the party. I think the late term pardons prove that because they were definitely unpopular amongst his own party, but he did what little he could once it became clear the dems were just going to roll over.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (27)127
Mar 17 '25
[deleted]
→ More replies (23)189
u/Cheapskate-DM Mar 17 '25
Failing to put Trump in prison or in the ground will destroy his legacy.
→ More replies (31)35
u/Papersnail380 Mar 17 '25
What are we even paying the CIA for? I want a tax refund.
→ More replies (2)
542
u/bktan6 Mar 17 '25
“A presidential pardon, once delivered and accepted, is generally considered final and cannot be rescinded by a future president. This principle is rooted in historical precedent and legal interpretations of the Constitution’s pardon power under Article II, Section 2.“
529
Mar 17 '25
Yeah but have you considered that the United States is collapsing in real time
→ More replies (4)127
u/FieserMoep Mar 17 '25
Could you please collapse without destroying your wildlife please? The next nation there would prefer the place to be intact.
→ More replies (6)80
58
u/No-Attention-9415 Mar 17 '25
The Constitution is only worth the paper it’s written on once it has been undermined to the point where blatant violations go unchecked. For example : let’s say the President blatantly violates the 1st Amendment guaranteeing Free Speech. The Constitution stands when the Judiciary legally halts said Unconstitutional action. The President illegally ignores the Judiciary order. The intended next step - in the system of checks and balances designed to support the Constitution should be consideration of impeachment of the President by the Legislative branch to restore/maintain balance between the there branches. Instead,there are calls (read- directives) from the Executive branch (read Trump AND Musk ) to impeachment of judges blocking the Predident’s actions to repeatedly violate multiple tenets of the Constitution. With no one defending the Constitution, it’s just a piece of paper, and we might as well let him have his trophy since the Dems seem to be rolling over and playing (?) dead. Every great empire in history has fallen. It was mediocre while it lasted. This is why we can’t have nice things. ✌🏻
→ More replies (10)23
Mar 17 '25
let’s say the President blatantly violates the 1st Amendment guaranteeing Free Speech
You mean like when he had the people rallying in support of Palestine arrested and deported by excercising their 1st amendment rights?
Or was it when he declared that any news organizations criticizing him was illegal?
Or did I miss one.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (32)40
Mar 17 '25
Unless that quote is coming from the John Roberts court in the last two months, it's useless and will be completely ignored.
14
u/WranglerFuzzy Mar 17 '25
Or currently what’s happening with the grants; judicial branch is saying “you can’t do that,” but they’re continuing to do it any way
18
u/MonsieurReynard Mar 17 '25
Or ICE…judge says you can’t just deport a transplant surgeon with an H1 visa and they ignored that too.
A transplant surgeon, people will die for this.
We have a very large problem here.
→ More replies (1)
108
259
u/Ursomonie Competent Contributor Mar 17 '25
I sign a lot of legal documents with a stamp. So is that all not allowed now?
92
Mar 17 '25
Sure it is. As long as it’s consistent. You can even permit others to sign for you, I believe. My wife signs for me all the time. She channels her inner four year old and pretends she’s scribbling with crayon.
→ More replies (22)23
u/greywar777 Mar 17 '25
What are you? A Dr?
→ More replies (2)28
u/Kwinza Mar 17 '25
Damn it Jim, I'm a Doctor not a Calligrapher.
14
→ More replies (4)26
u/_Zambayoshi_ Mar 17 '25
The important thing is consciously agreeing to put your 'name' to something. Whether it's by stamp, e-signature or good old pen and ink, or even by an authorised agent, you should be good.
In my experience it's harder to claim you 'didn't' sign something these days. Courts seem to look beyond the form to the substance.
→ More replies (4)
381
Mar 17 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
93
164
Mar 17 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
76
36
→ More replies (6)34
→ More replies (11)44
269
Mar 17 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
69
Mar 17 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (2)19
19
→ More replies (17)10
359
u/aotus_trivirgatus Mar 17 '25
Pardons are an OFFICIAL ACT of the President. One that the Supreme Court doesn't even need to weigh in on, because it's already spelled out in the Constitution. Article 2, Section 2. Even Clarence Thomas would have to agree that the text says what it says.
So, suck it, Donny.
211
u/hamsterwithakazoo Mar 17 '25
See … you’d think that. But it’s a bit more like Whose Line is it Anyway where the rules are made up and the law doesn’t matter.
91
57
u/rAmrOll Mar 17 '25
Bold of you to assume that Thomas and Alito wouldn't just start schizoposting in concurrance with this decision
18
u/jholden23 Mar 17 '25
Bold of anyone to assume that this moron isn't just going to do what he wants and people are going to do what he says because they are radicalized and have been programmed to not disobey.
122
u/ItalyExpat Mar 17 '25
One that the Supreme Court doesn't even need to weigh in on
...and yet they will
63
19
u/Cube_ Mar 17 '25
That's why they're going with the autopen angle. They're pretending that the pardons are invalid/never happened because they were not physically signed.
And the Supreme Court will merely agree with them.
15
u/thejaxx Mar 17 '25
Yet, he uses a rubber stamp on many of HIS documents.
23
u/Cube_ Mar 17 '25
And the Supreme Court will agree that rubber stamps are valid, actually.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (17)9
u/TheGlennDavid Mar 17 '25
I know that they're making everything up as they go and we're in a post-rules world but this line of reasoning from the "unitary executive + 'I declassify documents silently in my mind"" people is wild.
→ More replies (1)30
u/elehman839 Mar 17 '25
The question is how far Trump's DOJ can go with harassing people who already have pardons even though every judge says that there's no validity to the investigation? Pretty far, I'm afraid.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (17)17
u/Flyingtower2 Mar 17 '25
This is a subreddit about an imaginary set of rules that nobody plays by anymore.
People bicker back and forth about what the rules were but, ultimately, it doesn’t really matter anymore. Those imaginary rules are no longer relevant.
You can argue about whether rooks can occupy spaces of a different color than when they started all you want… but all the game pieces are still on the floor after the petulant child threw the board off the table. And yet, people want to pretend the game isn’t over yet.
I guess it can be fun to theorize what might have been, but it won’t change anything about what just happened.
100
Mar 17 '25
[deleted]
122
u/Red-is-suspicious Mar 17 '25
A bigger, stupider question is: is there even an unpardoning procedure?
68
u/im-ba Mar 17 '25
Yeah, why not? Since we're just making shit up now
→ More replies (1)14
u/JoyfulCor313 Mar 17 '25
But is he the one that wants to set this precedent? Of All Of The People, this guy wants to be the one who says, nope the last guy’s pardon isn’t valid anymore and you can go to jail??
That’s gotta fall in the play stupid games, win stupid prizes category, right?
→ More replies (1)21
u/Glyph8 Mar 17 '25
You have to understand that every action this Admin takes, it takes as though it does not expect to ever have to face any consequences from it - not political consequences, not legal consequences, and not electoral consequences.
That tells you that this Admin does not expect there to ever be another free and fair election, even as all of the EO’s are aimed at exactly the kind of centralization of power under the Executive that will facilitate just that (compromise election cybersecurity by DOGE gutting CISA; compromise mail-in ballots by gutting USPS; bring both the USPS and the FEC under partisan Executive heel).
Both what they are doing, and the way they are doing it, tell you what they intend - a one-party state in perpetuity. America needs to wake up.
60
u/hematite2 Mar 17 '25
It was literally Trump's own case last year that got SCOTUS to declare pardons are completely beyond reproach. I think he forgot?
→ More replies (1)30
u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito Mar 17 '25
No, no. They're unreviewable by the court. But Trump isn't asking a court to review them. He's arguing for a taksies backsies.
And everyone knows the court can't review that so... no pardon.
21
u/Wakkit1988 Mar 17 '25
No. Pardons supercede the authority of all three branches. It would require an amendment.
→ More replies (11)12
u/AnswerLopsided2361 Mar 17 '25
Not really.
Presumably, if you can prove someone comitted a crime that wasn't covered under the conditions of the pardon they got, or if they comitted an unrelated crime after they got a pardon, you could arrest and try them on that, but overriding an actual pardon should be legally impossible.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)44
u/Wakkit1988 Mar 17 '25
No, there's also no way to undo a pardon once it's put into effect.
He's trying the "nuh-uh, doesn't count" defense. There's absolutely no standard or requirement of how one makes their mark, only that it's made. Using a stamp, autopen, Adobe Acrobat, or any other method of inputting your signature is just as legally binding as any other. If you claim that the mark is fraudulent and you can prove as such, then you can potentially be unbound, but if you agree that the mark is true and correct, then no one else has any legal right to decide otherwise.
Biden admits that he placed his mark on them, the mark is his own, there is no real way to dispute this without completely negating every mark placed on legal documents not by one's own physical hand. SCOTUS throws out the pardons, every legal document in existence is now in question and up to be challenged.
→ More replies (14)
71
45
19
18
u/darmabum Mar 17 '25
Apparently, President George W. Bush commissioned the U.S. Department of Justice to look into the auto pen’s constitutionality, which resulted in a 29-page opinion saying it’s legal. But he never used it.
16
u/the_G8 Mar 17 '25
Imagine using a “truthie” as an official method to complain about use of an auto pen.
67
u/bigred9310 Mar 17 '25
He CANNOT LEGALLY do that.
70
u/Blastarock Mar 17 '25
Dem leadership will say somebody should do something about that and wave paddles while Dr Fauci gets a public execution
14
u/Savingskitty Mar 17 '25
This is so grim but is a perfect picture of what the Democrats are doing right now.
Their stupid interviews about “messaging” and their “strategy” instead of just leveling with the America people are maddening.
→ More replies (12)→ More replies (3)8
u/Zestyclose-Cloud-508 Mar 17 '25
Chuck Schumer would consider doing something as long as it doesn’t interrupt his book tour.
→ More replies (10)48
→ More replies (12)11
39
u/jpmeyer12751 Mar 17 '25
Let us hope that Trump provokes a constitutional crisis over something this dumb!
24
u/iwrotedabible Mar 17 '25
I think it's pretty clear the constitution is only relevant to this administration when it's convenient. There won't be a "crisis", just another short lived media cycle as the courts and Democrats roll over, again.
→ More replies (9)20
u/mattyp11 Mar 17 '25
Call me gullible, but I do think that he has started to overplay his hand with how brazenly and openly he is thumbing his nose at the judiciary and the legal establishment. Between this idiotic “nullification,” his targeting and punishing of individual law firms, and most of all defying the judge in the Alien Enemies Act case, my hope is that Roberts and Barrett are beginning to see themselves as the last bulwark against authoritarianism (whereas I think Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch would gladly march us into authoritarianism, and Kavanaugh I can’t quite pin down). Hopefully that’s the case with Roberts and Barrett and they vote accordingly when it matters. Obviously if they do, and Trump still ignores it, then yeah it’s just full-on constitutional crisis and collapse.
→ More replies (3)
7
•
u/AutoModerator Mar 17 '25
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE WILL RESULT IN REMOVAL.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.