> > Which is that pardons undermine the whole idea of the rule of law.
>
>In your view, when someone gets railroaded, they should have no hope of
>recourse after the Supreme Court - assuming they can afford to get that far?
In my view, individual citizens should have legal recourse. Not have to rely on political recourse. Ultimate recourse should be in law, not in politics. Political interference in the legal system is anaethema to the rule of law.
Recourse to a Presidential pardon is so exceptional as to be irrelevant in practice anyhow, it is only relevant on a political level. In the sense that it can smooth over the most blatant and public miscarriages of justice. Which is a very, VERY, bad thing, because such blatant miscarriages should force changes in the law, not exceptions to be made.
In this case, laws which deny people convicted of crimes full citizenship rights, such as the right to vote or own a weapon for legitimate purposes, need to be struck down. How is that ever going to happen if people don't see any problem with the laws? How are people ever going to see any problem if exceptions are made in the most egregious cases that would outrage public opinion?
What kind of legal system is it that allows for exceptions to be made for some people on purely political grounds anyhow? What kind of people are you Americans not to be outraged by that? I'll tell you what kind of people, people who accept that there's one rule for some people and another rule for others.
In other words, people who don't accept, don't even comprehend the concept, of the rule of law. Thus don't live under the rule of law.
If you don't live under the rule of law, then by default you live by the primitive rule of the gun. Hence this twisted idea that everyone is equal if everyone has the same size gun. Different rules for different people, no problemo, just so long as we all have a gun! That democracy equals ownership of a gun so you can deter the government from taking away your freedom. What a load of codswallop. And I say that as someone who has owned a gun (and rifles) nearly all my life.
That isn't what guns are for. They aren't useful to defend a population against oppressive government. A firearm in the hands of one person is useless against the force of the state, but unnecessary to a whole population which makes revolution against the state.
Like I say, you don't even know what the rule of law means, it an alien concept.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas