For help on how to follow a comic title,
“Lets look at the pros and cons.”
Confound it, I don’t see why we should!
“I’m really not sure I would believe that monks actually think like we think they do.”
I’m really not sure that I think about monks the way you think I do.
“The governors of most if not all states have pardon power. It might be interesting to see how their pardons fared when the crooked ones were challenged or convicted.”
I would consider it interesting, indeed, if any pardon were “overturned” for any reason, and whether that was done by the courts or by the legislature.
“…just like any other witness in a criminal case would be compelled.”
Huh? Since when can anyone be compelled to testify?
Anyone can claim Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination solely on the basis that their testimony could possibly lead to revealing their involvement in a different crime, not yet known to the court… or maybe even to the person being asked to testify.
“However, let’s say a random individual with pardon powers is impeached, indicted or charged with a crime against their office.”
Ain’t no such thing. Only the President — or the particular state governor, where state crimes are concerned — has the authority/power to pardon. No “random individual” has that authority/power.
“If he is convicted, though, couldn’t his actions could be deemed improper and reversed by a court of law?”
Probably not, though I suppose that could depend on what you mean by “improper”.
Even if it could be shown that he received money (or other “benefit”) in exchange for the pardon, he might be charged with and convicted of a crime, but I’m not sure that the pardon could be reversed. There’s nothing in the Constitution suggesting such a possibility, either by court or by Congress.
On the other hand, if he signed the pardon while being held at gunpoint by the pardonee (is that a word?), I suspect that the Supreme Court might rule that that would invalidate the pardon.
“If that’s how you break it, who picks up the pizzas?”
Whoever gets there first.
“As the Sesame Street jingle would phrase it: One of these old white guys is not like the other—one of these old white guys doesn’t belong.”
Yep. It’s important to be able to discriminate between the two.
“I would imagine that since the person doing the pardoning has been impeached, he can’t pardon others for wrongdoing associated with him.”
That’s quite an imagination.
“Impeached” means accused or indicted or charged, not convicted. What’s more, loopholes are loopholes, no matter whether someone thinks they are “unreasonable”. He is still “innocent until proven guilty”.
If there’s anything to prevent him executing any particular pardon, having been impeached is not it.
“Like Nate the Great just said right above this comment, all politicians change their stance just to garner votes and stay in office.”
Well, I doubt that Biden expects that changing “his stance” to be more racist will get him more votes. So I don’t think we need to worry about him promoting a racially restrictive agenda.
Especially not with Harris as his Veep. I believe we can depend on her to not be a background “statue” the way Pence was for almost the whole of Trump’s “reign”.
“Oh… wait a minute. Something is dawning on me….”
Of course. It’s not pro-found.