News   Apr 25, 2024
How It Started
 280     0 
News   Apr 24, 2024
Latest Iteration of 50 Eglinton West Proposes 46- and 58-Storey Towers
 1.2K     1 
News   Apr 24, 2024
Sustainability Month: Mass Timber Construction Showing Long-Term Economic Benefits
 1.6K     1 

Former President Donald Trump's United States of America

Our first U.S. Supreme Court decision in which new justice Amy Coney Barrett is in the ruling.

Its a 5-4 split with Coney Barrett in the majority, striking down N.Y. State restrictions on attending religious services due to Covid.

www.cnn.com

In a 5-4 ruling, Supreme Court sides with religious groups in a dispute over Covid-19 restrictions in New York

In a 5-4 ruling, the US Supreme Court sided with religious organizations in a dispute over Covid-19 restrictions put in place by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo limiting the number of people attending religious services.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com
 
Northern Light said:
Our first U.S. Supreme Court decision in which new justice Amy Coney Barrett is in the ruling.

Its a 5-4 split with Coney Barrett in the majority, striking down N.Y. State restrictions on attending religious services due to Covid.

www.cnn.com

In a 5-4 ruling, Supreme Court sides with religious groups in a dispute over Covid-19 restrictions in New York

In a 5-4 ruling, the US Supreme Court sided with religious organizations in a dispute over Covid-19 restrictions put in place by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo limiting the number of people attending religious services.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com
Click to expand...

America.. where religion tops common sense and religious freedoms override public health advice.
 
Northern Light said:
Our first U.S. Supreme Court decision in which new justice Amy Coney Barrett is in the ruling.

Its a 5-4 split with Coney Barrett in the majority, striking down N.Y. State restrictions on attending religious services due to Covid.

www.cnn.com

In a 5-4 ruling, Supreme Court sides with religious groups in a dispute over Covid-19 restrictions in New York

In a 5-4 ruling, the US Supreme Court sided with religious organizations in a dispute over Covid-19 restrictions put in place by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo limiting the number of people attending religious services.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com
Click to expand...

Disgusting. This will be Trump's enduring legacy unless Biden stacks the court with more appointees.
 
My quick read indicates that it is not prohibiting limits on religious gatherings, just that the limits were not in keeping with the limits on other parts of society.
 
afransen said:
My quick read indicates that it is not prohibiting limits on religious gatherings, just that the limits were not in keeping with the limits on other parts of society.
Click to expand...

Here is the actual decision:


From said decision:

In a red zone, while a synagogue or church may not admit more than 10 persons, businesses categorized as “essential” may admit as many people as they wish. And the list of “essential” businesses includes things such as acupuncture facilities, campgrounds, garages, as well as many whose services are not limited to those that can be regarded as essential, such as all plants manufacturing chemicals and microelectronics and all transportation facilities. See New York State, Empire State Development, Guidance for Determining Whether a Business Enterprise is Subject to a Workforce Reduction Under Recent Executive Orders, https://esd.ny.gov/guidance-executive-order-2026. The disparate treatment is even more striking in an orange zone.While attendance at houses of worship is limited to 25 persons, even non-essential businesses may decide for themselves how many persons to admit.

These categorizations lead to troubling results. At the hearing in the District Court, a health department official testified about a large store in Brooklyn that could “literally have hundreds of people shopping there on any given day.” App. to Application in No. 20A87, Exh. D, p. 83. Yet a nearby church or synagogue would be prohibited from al-lowing more than 10 or 25 people inside for a worship service. And the Governor has stated that factories and schools have contributed to the spread of COVID–19, id., Exh. H, at 3; App. to Application in No. 20A90, pp. 98, 100, but they are treated less harshly than the Diocese’s churches and Agudath Israel’s synagogues, which have admirable safety records.

Because the challenged restrictions are not “neutral” and of “general applicability,” they must satisfy “strict scrutiny,” and this means that they must be “narrowly tailored” to serve a “compelling” state interest. Church of Lukumi, 508 U. S., at 546. Stemming the spread of COVID–19 isunquestionably a compelling interest, but it is hard to see how the challenged regulations can be regarded as “narrowly tailored.” They are far more restrictive than any COVID–related regulations that have previously come before the Court,2 much tighter than those adopted by many other jurisdictions hard-hit by the pandemic, and far more severe than has been shown to be required to prevent the spread of the virus at the applicants’ services. The District Court noted that “there had not been any COVID–19 outbreak in any of the Diocese’s churches since they reopened,” and it praised the Diocese’s record in combating the spread of the disease.


* Side Tangent*

When did it become acceptable to start sentences with AND?
 
Will Trump be the first to pardon himself? That's what we're waiting to see. My guess, sometime between now and Jan 19th, Trump resigns and passes the leadership onto a Dönitz-like Mike Pence who quickly issues a pardon of all crimes committed by Trump. Trump then leaves the White House and does not need to face Biden, with Pence having to do the handover on Jan 20th. Pence then retires.
 
Admiral Beez said:
Will Trump be the first to pardon himself? That's what we're waiting to see. My guess, sometime between now and Jan 19th, Trump resigns and passes the leadership onto a Dönitz-like Mike Pence who quickly issues a pardon of all crimes committed by Trump. Trump then leaves the White House and does not need to face Biden, with Pence having to do the handover on Jan 20th. Pence then retires.
Click to expand...
There's a lot of speculation about that. While I wouldn't put it past Trump for trying, doesn't one need to actually charged with a crime, convicted and sentenced before receiving a pardon? It would take months if not longer for any charge to make its way through the courts. It's like the opposite of pleading the 5th, where he is incriminating himself.
 
marcus_a_j said:
There's a lot of speculation about that. While I wouldn't put it past Trump for trying, doesn't one need to actually charged with a crime, convicted and sentenced before receiving a pardon? It would take months if not longer for any charge to make its way through the courts. It's like the opposite of pleading the 5th, where he is incriminating himself.
Click to expand...

Ya, apparently legal scholars have been debating (a) whether Trump could pardon himself and/or (b) whether a pardon can be pre-emptive. There seems to be clarity that the President's (whoever that may be) reprieve and pardon authority only applies to "offences against the United States"; i.e. federal crimes.
 
Federal only seems to be the case so the states, particularly NY, can have at him.
 
Last edited:
The whole practice of presidential pardons needs to be reformed. It is being abused to excuse lackies from accountability.
 
PinkLucy said:
Doesn’t he have to be charged with something before he can be pardoned?
Click to expand...
No. Johnson pardoned Nixon, who wasn't charged with anything. It was a preemptive pardon against "possible indictment".

Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum

www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov

"As a result of certain acts or omissions occurring before his resignation from the Office of President, Richard Nixon has become liable to possible indictment and trial for offenses against the United States. Whether or not he shall be so prosecuted depends on findings of the appropriate grand jury and on the discretion of the authorized prosecutor. Should an indictment ensue, the accused shall then be entitled to a fair trial by an impartial jury, as guaranteed to every individual by the Constitution.

It is believed that a trial of Richard Nixon, if it became necessary, could not fairly begin until a year or more has elapsed. In the meantime, the tranquility to which this nation has been restored by the events of recent weeks could be irreparably lost by the prospects of bringing to trial a former President of the United States. The prospects of such trial will cause prolonged and divisive debate over the propriety of exposing to further punishment and degradation a man who has already paid the unprecedented penalty of relinquishing the highest elective office of the United States.

Now, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9,1974."
 
afransen said:
The whole practice of presidential pardons needs to be reformed. It is being abused to excuse lackies from accountability.
Click to expand...
No more so than by Obama, who pardoned a record 1,927 criminals in his eight year run. You have to go back to Harry Truman to find a president more prolific in pardoning. George W Bush, president before Obama pardoned a total of two hundred people in his eight year run. Including Michael Flynn, Trump has pardoned a total of forty-five criminals.

en.wikipedia.org

List of people pardoned or granted clemency by the president of the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Admiral Beez said:
No more so than by Obama, who pardoned a record 1,927 criminals in his eight year run. You have to go back to Harry Truman to find a president more prolific in pardoning. George W Bush, president before Obama pardoned a total of two hundred people in his eight year run. Including Michael Flynn, Trump has pardoned a total of forty-five criminals.

en.wikipedia.org

List of people pardoned or granted clemency by the president of the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...

You make it sound like that's a lot.

Canada Pardons between 5000-25000 people per year.

Pardoned Offenders in Canada: A Statistical Analysis 2000-02

Pardoned Offenders in Canada: A Statistical Analysis 2000-02
www.publicsafety.gc.ca www.publicsafety.gc.ca

Now, the distinction to be made is, in Canada, a pardon specifically means to waive the criminal record, after a period of years (typically 3-5) after completion of a sentence.

The U.S. also has this type of pardon; but additionally, Presidents may pardon an offender prior to trial or conviction, or while serving a sentence.

That doesn't really exist here.

But if you assumed the U.S., would grant pardons at the rate as Canada, you would expect 45,000, 225,000 per year.

Now, this is further complicated by the fact that Criminal Law is nominally at the State level in the U.S. and that Governors may also issue Pardons (for State offenses)

Interestingly, a notorious Republican Governor (the former Governor of Kentucky) issued 600 pardons on his way out the door.

 
Northern Light said:
You make it sound like that's a lot.

Canada Pardons between 5000-25000 people per year.

Pardoned Offenders in Canada: A Statistical Analysis 2000-02

Pardoned Offenders in Canada: A Statistical Analysis 2000-02
www.publicsafety.gc.ca www.publicsafety.gc.ca

Now, the distinction to be made is, in Canada, a pardon specifically means to waive the criminal record, after a period of years (typically 3-5) after completion of a sentence.

The U.S. also has this type of pardon; but additionally, Presidents may pardon an offender prior to trial or conviction, or while serving a sentence.

That doesn't really exist here.

But if you assumed the U.S., would grant pardons at the rate as Canada, you would expect 45,000, 225,000 per year.

Now, this is further complicated by the fact that Criminal Law is nominally at the State level in the U.S. and that Governors may also issue Pardons (for State offenses)

Interestingly, a notorious Republican Governor (the former Governor of Kentucky) issued 600 pardons on his way out the door.

Click to expand...

typically 3-5
Click to expand...
Now five to 10 for eligible offences.

One other difference is our pardon system is a legislated process managed by a federal government entity based on a set of criteria. The US system strikes me more like a laying on of hands. I could not find any US pardon process for federal crimes that is similar to ours. State governors have similar power, but apparently only nine states have pardon boards but I don't know what the process or criteria are.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top