this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2026
334 points (98.8% liked)

Not The Onion

22626 readers
977 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] LordMayor@piefed.social 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

That’s not settled law. From your own link (emphasis mine):

Although the Supreme Court's opinion stated that a pardon carries "an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it,"[2] this was part of the Court's dictum for the case.[4] Whether the acceptance of a pardon constitutes an admission of guilt by the recipient is disputed.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 1 points 10 hours ago

It's not only disputed, it's logically nonsensical. The Supreme Court has found general pardons to be constitutional. That is, a pardon for any and all crimes that may have committed during a specified period. And if that's the case, and someone accepts such a pardon, what exactly are they admitting guilt to? Everything? Anything?

Also, pardons have long been used to rectify miscarriages of justice, their wording has indicated that purpose, and pardonees have accepted those pardons.