user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Voted : No: Not OK to have the ability to pardon your own Administration members
No, it's a conflict of interest.
I agree with Cranky. It's a conflict of interest.
Voted : No: Not OK to have the ability to pardon your own Administration members
no way
by ABC on Mon Sep 11, 06 11:34am
[+]
Voted : Other
Isn't this a tough question? Yes. It seems to me that we want someone we elect to represent us to have the power to undo manifest injustices. We need a final authority to be able to dispense mercy at appropriate times. Do we want to tinker with this authority just because we happen not to like the current holder of this power, and believe that he is likely to abuse his authority? No, we do not. We need an "instant replay" official at the top of the judicial food chain. The principle outweighs the potential abuse, as repugnant as it is to support this power with the current administration.
margaret: Agreed -- the issue should not be framed as applying to any person or officeholder, but to the office, itself.
No. Presidential pardons have always seemed a little sketchy to me.
Voted : Yes: OK to have the ability to pardon your own Administration members
“To the victor belongs the spoils.”
Voted : No: Not OK to have the ability to pardon your own Administration members
Sound slike the definition of being able to cover one's own a$$ in times of crisis (read one L. "Scooter" Libby).
margaret, I'd agree with you if we weren't faced with an administration that seems inherently incapable of grasping the concept of justice.
Voted : No: Not OK to have the ability to pardon your own Administration members
just encourages them to invite criminals into their administration --
or um - they do that anyway, don't they?
Voted : Other
I'll go with what margaret123 said. It is easy to be against when Bush is president and silent when a democrat is in. Clinton certainly pardoned some questionable people too. There perhaps needs to be some type of limit to it, perhaps congress or the Supreme Court could overrule it. That would allow all but the most egregious pardons to go through without any problems.
FF: It is my observation that yopu are dodging teh question.
At no time did the ballot question mention Bush, Repuiblicans, or anyone. And I reinforce in the comments that the question very specifically is directed at the *office* of the presidency, not any incumbent or past holder.
Not every ballot is an indictment of Bush, specifically, you know.
Cathexis - not directly, but a few comments into debate and - bang! - someone will make it so.
BL: I'd suggest that someone making an off-topic comment does not make the ballot off-topic ... unless people follow-up on the tangent.
Me? I'm all for getting back on track, wherevever necessary.
|
|
