The decision, which was first reported by NBC News, is a reversal for the president, who repeatedly said he would not use his authority to pardon his son or commute his sentence.

Summary

President Joe Biden pardoned his son Hunter Biden, reversing his prior stance against using executive clemency.

The pardon covers Hunter’s federal gun conviction and tax evasion guilty plea, sparking political controversy.

Biden cited political attacks and a “miscarriage of justice” as reasons for his decision, emphasizing his son’s recovery from addiction and the targeting of his family.

Critics argue the move undermines the judicial process, while supporters view it as within Biden’s constitutional powers.

This decision shields Hunter from potential prison time as Biden nears the end of his presidency.

  • Tedesche@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1404·
    20 days ago

    I’ve always found it absurd that presidents possess the authority to grant pardons. It trivializes our judicial system and undermines its integrity. This power should not be vested in the presidency.

    • Draces@lemmy.world
      343·
      20 days ago

      It’s supposed to be a check on the judicial. Are you suggesting it should be vested elsewhere or just not at all? I wouldn’t remove any checks on this court personally

      • Akasazh@feddit.nl
        10·
        20 days ago

        How does this check work?

        I mean if you’re president is an unethical convict, like the next one, it obviously doesn’t work as intended.

        The judiciary should be entirely separated from the political as per the trias politica.

        • Draces@lemmy.world
          4·
          20 days ago

          I mean that’s what it was meant for, to pardon political victims of the court. None of it was meant to work with political parties though like Washington(?) warned though. But none of it was meant for that

        • newDayRocks@lemmy.world
          21·
          20 days ago

          The president is then in turn checked by the legislature, who hold the power to impeach and remove.

          Just that everything that works in theory stops working when you have 250 years to break it.

    • Mrfiddles@feddit.nl
      71·
      20 days ago

      Honestly, I think it’s more of a practical matter. Even if they didn’t have explicit pardon power, whoever’s in charge of the executive has effective pardon powers by simply denying to carry out the orders of the court (see Jackson’s behavior which lead to the trail of tears).

      At least by making it official it’s a lot more clear what’s going on, and maybe they had hoped this would lead to electoral consequences for those who abused it?