Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tecoyah
Given the blatant disregard for court mandated punishment in the Libby case, does any form of justice issued by the courts now carry the same weight it did...yesterday? Does the removal of legal descision put into question the very fabric of future investigation?
|
Are you a rich, well-connected white dude? If so, then you've always gotten special treatment in this country, you should be used to it by now. Not quite a 'free pass', in most cases, but at the very least deferential treatment.
If you're a middle class white person, you'll probably get a fair deal in our court system, assuming drugs aren't involved, and probably a few other things.
If you're unwise enough to be black, a woman, or poor, then you're screwed. Though to be fair, I think the situation for those groups is improving, slowly.
In this particular case, no, I don't think it represents a fundamental change in our justice system. Presidents have always had the power to pardon (and commute sentences of) criminals. They've often misused that power for political or personal reasons (even Bill Clinton pardoned a guy who donated to his political campaign). It might even be a good idea to limit this power by allowing a 2/3 vote in the house and senate to negate the presidential power to pardon. This is a particularly egregious case, so maybe some changes will happen.