Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Editorials & Other Articles

regnaD kciN

(27,663 posts)

4. I wouldn't want to argue that before this SCOTUS...

Reply to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Sat Apr 11, 2026, 03:09 PM

18 hrs ago

…because they likely would not only uphold the absolute right of the president to pardon whoever he wanted, but would probably also rule that the use of the masculine pronoun in that passage meant that the POTUS had to be male.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

4 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

"No amount of exaggeration about the pardon power can overcome the express mandate to the President in Art II, Sec 3." [View all] mahatmakanejeeves 19 hrs ago OP

That's a heavy hitter. bucolic_frolic 19 hrs ago #1

I would wonder if cases could be argued about pardons given by a president whom was mentally impaired Cheezoholic 18 hrs ago #2

i mean, he tried to make the case mopinko 18 hrs ago #3

I wouldn't want to argue that before this SCOTUS... regnaD kciN 18 hrs ago #4