Scooter Skates
July 3rd 2007 22:23
President Bush has commuted the jail sentence of former White House employee Scooter Libby. He still has to pay a hefty fine and he has lost his law license, but he will avoid jail.
As can be expected, those on the political left are furious about this version of personal amnesty given by Bush. It's not surprising, but I didn't see this level of outcry when Bill Clinton was handing out pardons (more sweeping and forgiving than commutations) like party favors during his presidency. I guess it's too much to ask for consistency from the political talking heads. Still, it would be a refreshing development if everyone was held to the same standard.
Personally, I think the whole concept of presidential pardons (an absolute right bestowed on the president by the Constitution) is unseemly. It opens up those involved to issues of preferential treatment, bribery accusations, and patent unfairness. I like to think that I'm a "law and order" guy. If you did the crime, you must do the time. Is our justice system perfect? No. But that doesn't mean that the president is a qualified arbiter who should be trusted to mete out justice at will. I didn't like it when Clinton was handing out pardons (especially suspect pardons like that of Marc Rich) and I don't like it now that Bush has given his friend a sentence commutation. Either we trust our courts to do their jobs or we don't. Besides, it's not like our courts don't already have exhaustive appeals processes in place to catch the more egregious injustices.
So while I'm not going to be protesting in the streets about pardons/commutations handed out by any president, put me on record as being generally against them. I just don't think that one person -- especially a person whose status and position is political by nature -- should have or use such a power.
As can be expected, those on the political left are furious about this version of personal amnesty given by Bush. It's not surprising, but I didn't see this level of outcry when Bill Clinton was handing out pardons (more sweeping and forgiving than commutations) like party favors during his presidency. I guess it's too much to ask for consistency from the political talking heads. Still, it would be a refreshing development if everyone was held to the same standard.
Personally, I think the whole concept of presidential pardons (an absolute right bestowed on the president by the Constitution) is unseemly. It opens up those involved to issues of preferential treatment, bribery accusations, and patent unfairness. I like to think that I'm a "law and order" guy. If you did the crime, you must do the time. Is our justice system perfect? No. But that doesn't mean that the president is a qualified arbiter who should be trusted to mete out justice at will. I didn't like it when Clinton was handing out pardons (especially suspect pardons like that of Marc Rich) and I don't like it now that Bush has given his friend a sentence commutation. Either we trust our courts to do their jobs or we don't. Besides, it's not like our courts don't already have exhaustive appeals processes in place to catch the more egregious injustices.
So while I'm not going to be protesting in the streets about pardons/commutations handed out by any president, put me on record as being generally against them. I just don't think that one person -- especially a person whose status and position is political by nature -- should have or use such a power.
| 29 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog