There has been no shortage of commentary and criticism of Prez Trump's decision on Friday to make his first use of the clemency power a pardon for Joe Arpaio (basics here). Here is a not-quite-random, not-so-systematic sampling of stories and commentaries:
-
From Adam Liptak here, "Why Trump’s Pardon of Arpaio Follows Law, Yet Challenges It"
-
From Jane Chong here, "The Arpaio Pardon Dangerously Accelerates Trump’s Assault on the Rule of Law"
-
From Joan Biskupic here, "Judges remain silent as Trump pardons Arpaio"
-
From Frank Bowman here, "Trump’s Pardon of Joe Arpaio Is an Impeachable Offense: The president has the power to pardon, but he’s misused that power. The Constitution is clear."
-
From Austin Sarat here, "Trump's Attack on the Rule of Law: The president's pardon of Sheriff Joe Arpaio is constitutional, but it sends a dangerous message."
- From Rosario Marin here, "Ex-US Treasurer: Arpaio pardon is one more insulting anti-Hispanic move by Trump"
In accord with a lot of the commentary here, I am troubled by how Prez Trump first decided to use his historic clemency powers. But, as this Guardian piece usefully highlights, many recent presidents have used their clemency authority in ways seemingly motivated unduly by political commitments rather than purely by concerns about justice and mercy. I want to believe that the current President is capable and eager to have concerns about justice and mercy impact at least some of his future clemency decisions, but his track record on this front and others certainly does not inspire optimism.
Comments
Post a Comment