this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2024
357 points (94.5% liked)

politics

18870 readers
3867 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
357
Biden promised no jail time for weed. He's running out of time to pardon cannabis convicts. (www.usatoday.com)
submitted 3 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
71 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

With the president's decision to drop out of the race, he has effectively begun a longer lame-duck period, which is historically when most presidential clemency grants have occurred.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 92 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Not so sure it's correct to say he's already in the "lame duck" phase the article mentions where most presidents stuff their clemency grants. It might be true in a literal sense, but public perception is presumably the main reason presidents wait until that period for this sort of thing, and I'm sure he's still very conscious of how his own PR could affect Harris's campaign.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 hours ago

I'd argue that it should be seen by party rather than by individual. So the real lame duck period doesn't start until it's clear that the White House is about to change parties. This is much shorter (election in Nov, new Prez sworn in late Jan) and also covers the period major winter holidays (so don't expect too much to get done).

[–] [email protected] 52 points 3 days ago (3 children)

By the article’s logic, every president elected to a second term has entered their lame duck phase the day after the election.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 hours ago

Came on just to say this. I'd argue that it's by party rather than by individual, so with the Dems trying to get another term Biden has to be careful not to throw a spanner into the works for Harris.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 days ago

Yes, this is not uncommon in US politics.

Here's what Wikipedia has to say about it:

In U.S. politics, the period between (presidential and congressional) elections in November and the inauguration of officials early in the following year is commonly called the "lame-duck period".

A president elected to a second term is sometimes seen as a lame duck from early in the second term, since term limits prevent them from contesting re-election four years later. However, not personally having to face the electorate again makes a second-term president more powerful than they were in their first term as they are thus freer to take politically unpopular actions. However, this comes with caveats; as the de facto leader of their political party, the president's actions affect how the party performs in the midterm elections two years into the second term, and, to some extent, the success of that party's nominee in the next presidential election four years in the future. For these reasons, it can be argued that a president in their second term is not a lame duck at all.

So while you're right that the assertion the author is making is misguided, it's a fallacy that is made often enough that some might conflate it with reality.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 days ago

They have…. That’s why there is a usual trend of bolder actions taken by second term presidents because they’re no longer eligible for candidacy for President.

That’s also why we can’t fuck about with a second Trump term.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 3 days ago (1 children)

They keep trying to extend the term lame duck.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 days ago

It’s like Christmas season. Soon the lame duck period will start before they even begin campaigning for their first term!

[–] [email protected] 36 points 3 days ago (2 children)

The letter referred to mentions "more than 150 people currently serving federal sentences for non-violent cannabis-related offenses" -- not the "estimated 3,000 individuals still incarcerated in our federal prison system for cannabis" that the article states.

Almost all non-violent cannabis-related offenses are state convictions, for which the president has no pardon power. This article seems to gloss over that fact. As others in this thread have stated, no such action is going to happen until after the election anyway.

Whle I don't disagree with the main thrust of this opinion article, it's a bit misleading and unrealistic in its timeline.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 37 points 3 days ago (52 children)

C'mon he won't do this until the elections over. Nothing controversial until after the election.

load more comments (52 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I'll be shocked if he actually keeps his word.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 3 days ago

He kicked off the process to have them investigate it so it could be reclassified back in 2022. The reclassification would be the grounds for courts to accept changes in sentences. Once the reclassification is done Congress will have to write the bill, not the executive branch, he's done his part already.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-submits-proposed-regulation-reschedule-marijuana

The president can't just bypass the judicial or legislative branch and magically make it happen.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 days ago (2 children)

I suspect that if he intends a mass pardon he will do it after the election. Common sense says that there is more risk of negative campaign influence then positive in this case, and why would he risk it?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 days ago

He can't pardon people from state crimes, all he can do is pardon from federal. Once reclassified, he can "urge" Congress to write legislation to superceed state laws, be he isn't the the legislative branch.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 days ago

The difference here is pardoning [clutches pearls] criminals. Which will be spun to dangerous, convicted, surely "seriously bad guys" that plead down to a lesser charge.

load more comments
view more: next ›