SPECIAL | The power of the presidential pardon: Is it equal justice for all or just a few?
Dec 12, 2024
auto_awesome
Bart Jansen, a Justice Correspondent for USA Today, joins to dissect the controversial presidential pardon of Hunter Biden. He explores the political implications of this decision and how it challenges the principle of equal justice. Historical precedents of pardons reveal a pattern of privilege, sparking debates about fairness in the justice system. Jansen raises ethical concerns over pardoning family members and questions the future of presidential powers in light of recent Supreme Court rulings. The discussion sheds light on the complexities of mercy and accountability in American governance.
The presidential pardon, rooted in mercy and amnesty, often exempts influential individuals from accountability for their crimes, exemplified by Biden's pardon of Hunter Biden.
President Biden's early pardon of his son challenges traditional practices and ignites debates regarding fairness and the perceived dual standard in the justice system.
Deep dives
Presidential Pardon Dynamics
The power of presidential pardons is rooted in the U.S. tradition of mercy and amnesty, which simultaneously allows for individuals to escape accountability for crimes. President Biden's recent pardon of his son, Hunter Biden, illustrates the complexities of this power as it extends to both known and unspecified crimes. The pardon has reignited debates surrounding the ethical implications of a president pardoning their relatives, with historical parallels drawn to past administrations, such as Bill Clinton and Donald Trump, who similarly acted to pardon family and close associates. These situations raise questions about fairness in the justice system and the perception of a dual standard for the well-connected versus ordinary individuals.
Impact of Timing on Pardons
Biden's decision to pardon Hunter before sentencing defies common practice, where pardons typically follow the completion of legal proceedings. This early intervention draws attention to a unique precedent in the realm of presidential pardons and the scrutiny it invites. Historical instances, such as Trump’s pardon of Sheriff Joe Arpaio before sentencing, mirror this approach and contribute to the ongoing discussion about the propriety and motivations behind such actions. As the response to these pardons can be polarizing, this timing further complicates public perception and acceptance.
Constitutional Controversies
The constitutional authority of presidential pardons is expansive, yet it raises significant questions about accountability and justice. Critics argue that pardons can obscure or mitigate the consequences of wrongdoing, particularly when granted for unspecified offenses, such as in the case of Hunter Biden. The discussion is compounded by the recent Supreme Court ruling declaring that presidents cannot be prosecuted for actions tied to their official duties, which further blurs the lines of legality and accountability. This development leads to speculation about the limits of presidential power and how it might shield future actions from judicial oversight, thus emphasizing the delicate balance between mercy and justice.
A foundational principle of the U.S. Constitution is the idea that no one is above the law. And yet, the power of the presidential pardon, based on the embrace of the concepts of mercy and amnesty, essentially guarantees that, in fact, a select few are actually not held accountable for crimes they have been found guilty of. President Joe Biden’s sweeping pardon of his son Hunter, after repeatedly promising he wouldn’t do it, is a case in point. What can the historical use of this awesome power tell us about how we should judge this political inflection point? USA TODAY Justice Correspondent Bart Jansen joins The Excerpt to dig into this complex and politically fraught topic.