[ryandrake]

Which ultimately doesn't matter. If the president tries to do something, and no court actually stops him, then it doesn't matter whether or not it's in the Constitution, whether or not it's written down in law, or whether or not it has been litigated in the past. He tried to do it, nobody stopped him, therefore he can do it.

We are finding out in real time that the president can actually do a lot of things, simply because nobody is stopping him.

[usefulcat]

If you want to prosecute someone who has previously been pardoned, then you'll have to figure out how to get the courts (that is, the people who would be doing the actual prosecuting) to ignore some of the highest rules by which they operate.

I'm not saying that that could never happen, but a) it sure sounds like an uphill battle and b) it's not the same thing as the president (one person) doing whatever they feel like regardless of the law.

[iamnothere]

I don’t think these blanket pardons are a good thing at all, but an amendment is needed to fix it.

We have somehow made it a habit to ignore the inconvenient parts of the constitution when they create problems, rather than going through the enumerated process to amend them. Yes, it’s hard to amend the constitution, but that’s the point!

[kelnos]

Fair, but I don't think it's likely that SCOTUS would invalidate any of Trump's presidential pardons, assuming a future president decided to prosecute someone he pardoned. I doubt even the liberal members of SCOTUS would want to touch that.