Matt Bevin and his last-minute pardons

[pjohns]

Matt Bevin--the outgoing governor of Kentucky, and a Republican--just pardoned about 400 people.

Some of these pardons were highly controversial (to say the least).

But that is really not what I wish to focus upon.

Rather, it is this:

If the man truly believes that these people were railroaded--either through the use of ineffective counsel, or the exclusion of certain evidence, or anything else--then why did he not pardon them sooner?

This suggests to me that he was unwilling to stir up a hornet's nest when that would likely cause him some political trouble.

No, he would rather just let these people--whom he has long believed to be innocent--sit in prison for a few extra years.

Does anyone else see something smarmy--and cowardly--about this?

Note: This is not at all a partisan thing. Outgoing Democrats--as well as outgoing Republicans--often tend to do this.

But the frequency of the practice does not make it any better.

[Captdon]

He screwed the pooch on this.

[Green Arrow]

Personally, I think there’s a lot of room to regulate gubernatorial and presidential pardons.

[Captdon]

Personally, I think there’s a lot of room to regulate gubernatorial and presidential pardons.

Such as changing the Constitution for Presidential pardons.

[countryboy]

Personally, I think there’s a lot of room to regulate gubernatorial and presidential pardons.

You can't "regulate" the Constitution. Or at least, you're not supposed to be able to.

[Green Arrow]

You can't "regulate" the Constitution. Or at least, you're not supposed to be able to.

You can, actually. Believe it or not, the founders never intended for the constitution to remain unchanged for all eternity and actually gave us ways to change it.

[Green Arrow]

Such as changing the Constitution for Presidential pardons.

Obviously.

[countryboy]

You can, actually. Believe it or not, the founders never intended for the constitution to remain unchanged for all eternity and actually gave us ways to change it.

Yes, there are ways to change it, regulation isn't one of them.

[Green Arrow]

Yes, there are ways to change it, regulation isn't one of them.

I'm not going to go around in circles playing semantics with you, it gets old fast. A constitutional change in this manner would regulate the president's pardoning power. So yes, regulation is the way to change it.

[Cletus]

Matt Bevin--the outgoing governor of Kentucky, and a Republican--just pardoned about 400 people.

Some of these pardons were highly controversial (to say the least).

But that is really not what I wish to focus upon.

Rather, it is this:

If the man truly believes that these people were railroaded--either through the use of ineffective counsel, or the exclusion of certain evidence, or anything else--then why did he not pardon them sooner?

This suggests to me that he was unwilling to stir up a hornet's nest when that would likely cause him some political trouble.

No, he would rather just let these people--whom he has long believed to be innocent--sit in prison for a few extra years.

Does anyone else see something smarmy--and cowardly--about this?

Note: This is not at all a partisan thing. Outgoing Democrats--as well as outgoing Republicans--often tend to do this.

But the frequency of the practice does not make it any better.

It is of course, likely that most of those cases were never brought to his attention before now.