Fat hurts wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
The law is the law. Sometimes people with "half a brain" don't understand the law. I could pull up examples all day of agreements that accepting a pardon is an assumption of guilt. You are right about a lot of things, but you are wrong about this. Burdick v. United States is clear.
It's definitely not the law. I defy you to find a single statute that says accepting a pardon is an assumption of guilt. Whether or not Burdick even applies here is an open question. One obscure dictum in a single case from 1912 does not make it the law. There are plenty of expert legal minds that agree with me.
But since neither of us is actually a lawyer, I'll make this my last post on the subject. Feel free to have the last word.
Since Fat hurts started this by calling me out on something I was right about, I WILL respond to him.
It was 1915 by the way, not 1912. Perhaps you don't have the rest of it right either.
President Ford used the Burdick v. United States case to justify pardoning Nixon!
The SCOTUS ruled. There is no SCOTUS decision that overturns that decision.
Sorry Fat hurts, but you are wrong. SOME legal minds might agree with you (I haven't seen any evidence of that), but that's only because you have dissenting views on ANY case. Sometimes a court case comes up down the line that challenges a case and then IT becomes the defining one.
As we sit today, if you accept a pardon, you are admitting guilt.
"A pardon carries an imputation of guilt and that acceptance carries a confession of guilt."
You can reject a pardon if you so choose.
That can not be more clear, and Ford used that to rationalize pardoning Nixon, because Ford felt ok with it because it didn't remove guilt from Nixon.
Make darn sure you are right in the future before calling me out, because I am hardly ever wrong, and I am not wrong here.