I don't know? The discussion online doesn't necessarily seem to be about the timing but the parameters/criteria for whose sentences got commuted.
The Biden Presidency
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
the parameter is non-vilent offences, which is hardly something original the ACLU cooked up. the ACLU also wanted a death penalty commutation which he didn't do.
it would be somewhat funny (i.e. totally unbelievable) if he decided to totally capitulate to the ACLU on this 3.5 years after their letter, having nothing to do with his compelling current reason to do pardons.
They still need to review the case, double check, and it's still 5 a day
Unless he doesnt care and simply signs everything
I'm not sure if the last line implies a causative relationship between the letter and Biden's action; if it does, then "that specific bit" is likely false.
This doesn't seem to be the main point of contention. People were unhappy with whom were included in the commutations. It's argued that the criteria used by the White House were criteria that progressives advocated for. Is this not true?
They're unhappy with 2 of the one thousand five hundred. I don't think "progressives" would have protested that their criteria weren't followed, if those two were excluded. as a broad category, "non-violent" is certainly defensible.
The level of bad faith bs being thrown by yggy, levitz, and noahpinion at progressives, after their favoured centrist campaign/president lost, is breathtaking.
Does the bad faith not go both ways? I get the gist of what you're saying but the line of thinking of "please follow our criteria recommendations selectively" in itself feels weak.
I looked up who signed that letter. It was signed by:
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
FAMM
Justice Action Network
Amnesty International
Brennan Center for Justice
Drug Policy Alliance
Dream Corps JUSTICE
Due Process Institute
Faith and Freedom Coalition
Freedomworks
FWD.us
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
NAACP
NACDL
REFORM Alliance
R Street Institute
Right on Crime
Sentencing Project
The Fortune Society
WE GOT US NOW
These organizations run the gamut from progressive to bipartisan to libertarian to apolitical so framing this as 'Biden listened to progressives!!!1 you people are never happy!!" is in bad faith, imo.
Last edited:
the bad faith comes from linking this to a 3.5 year old letter that was lying buried in a desk somewhere.
there's some debate to be had about the aclu's criteria, but the motivation here is very clearly the outcry over his son's pardon - a pardon that yggy supported earlier in the year!
The letter says so: "we are organizations on the right and left".
The "Biden has agency and should have vetted everyone!!!" line of thinking seems like bad faith to me as well. One could also say something to the tune of "I guess I'm glad he followed our criteria, too bad that included some very bad people but it is what it is".
Again, whether there is a causal link between that letter and Biden is not really the main contention point. It's the specific criteria.
Now you got people saying that Biden should have "vetted" everyone. This sounds bad faith to me. If Biden followed some of the criteria that both left-wing and right-wing orgs asked for, then own up to those criteria? In other words, the smearing of Biden feels bad faith to me on this specific thing.
THE SMEARING OF BIDEN IS BECAUSE HE DID THIS LAST MINUTE TO DISTRACT FROM HIS SHIT BADLY TIMED DECISION TO PARDON HIS OWN SON AFTER PROMISING NOT TO.
If that letter has anything to do with this decision, he had 3.5 years to vet everyone on that list.
Either that's what happened : her was deeply moved by the letter, investigated all the thousand cases, and approved each pardon including evil judge
Or
This was a last minute nonsense.
I'm curious which one you think makes him look better.
That may happen too but Biden already got criticized for that. What you say is not really relevant to the point of which criteria were used.
Were the criteria used by the White House not part of the criteria that people asked for? Did people also say "but please selectively apply them"?
Are any of the organizations behind this old letter criticizing Biden for this?
You can answer the question I asked. Which do you think happened. He personally evaluated all 1000 cases and that's why it took 3 years. He did this last minute because of hunter.
I don't know, I haven't seen that. But that would be a fair distinction.
What I see though online seems like bad faith smearing against Biden. In the sense that people don't say "Hmm I disagree with these criteria", they say "Biden should have vetted!". Feels weak.
This is not relevant. You clearly know very well that the outrage doesn't necessarily concern the timing but whom were included in the pardons/commutations and that it's argued that Biden followed certain criteria that people seemed happy with.
How is it bad faith, and how is that in any way connected to the letter? I'm really trying to understand what you're trying to get at, and I'm struggling. The closest to anything coherent I've arrived at is something along the lines of "some people, a subset of which are progressives, agree with what Biden did, therefore it's bad faith for other people to disagree with what Biden did [potentially especially so if the people disagreeing are progressives, somehow?]", but I doubt that's it.
As for "In the sense that people don't say "Hmm I disagree with these criteria", they say "Biden should have vetted!". Feels weak.", that is saying they disagree with the criteria used, because they're saying that individual vetting should have been one. Implicitly, by the kids for cash judge being mentioned, they're saying that "not engaging in child slavery" should be a criteria, for instance.
So you're refusing to answer, got it.
The reason it's relevant is because the ACLU can suggest criteria (non violence* is a very defensible criterion and was the main basis of that covid release) and the president can use those criteria and his power and his massive staff and see how well they work in all those cases.
If his actions had anything at all to do with the ACLU letter, he might have personally signed of on this particular judge, and that's another Biden W. If they don't, then this is the president's shoddy job.
* For me what he did was not different to kidnapping, a violent crime, and the circle should be completed in that way
Do you dispute that Biden used criteria that people asked for in the past?
Two things can be true: Biden didn't specifically act on that old letter but still used criteria that people were happy with.
Last edited:
I think the bolded is a generous interpretation.
Arguments like "Biden has agency" don't seem to be used as criticism towards the criteria but rather criticism against Biden himself. It feels to me like shying away from the notion that the criteria unfortunately included some bad people but they're hesitant about openly criticizing the criteria itself. That feels bad faith to me.
It's not generous, and barely an interpretation at all, it's a basic function of language.
Just wait until he pardons his brother. Shit gonna get real then....
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/17/texas-newborn-twins-mother-ice-deportation
Federico Arellano Jr, a US citizen, saw his wife, Christina Salazar, and their four children be taken into custody on 11 December, just three months after Salazar had given birth to their twins in Houston.
By birthright citizenship under US law, the twins are US citizens since they were born within the country and at least one of their parents is a citizen.
Salazar, 23, and her children were put on a plane at Houston’s George Bush airport bound for Reynosa, Mexico – a place where they had no contacts and no way of getting money, according to the family’s lawyers. Lawyers also said it was cold the night Salazar and her children were detained and they were not allowed to get their coats.
Federico Arellano Jr, a US citizen, saw his wife, Christina Salazar, and their four children be taken into custody on 11 December, just three months after Salazar had given birth to their twins in Houston.
By birthright citizenship under US law, the twins are US citizens since they were born within the country and at least one of their parents is a citizen.
Salazar, 23, and her children were put on a plane at Houston’s George Bush airport bound for Reynosa, Mexico – a place where they had no contacts and no way of getting money, according to the family’s lawyers. Lawyers also said it was cold the night Salazar and her children were detained and they were not allowed to get their coats.
Let's hope the democrats put an end to these cruel republican policies.
Looks like Jordan Peterson to me.
Not as bad as Trump is the lowest of low bars.
I wanna party with hunter
We aren't all #scottyfrommarketing you know?Nah, that would be being Australian
Spring of 2021... this guy has been past it since day 1.
They turned full right and then got their asses kicked. No one could've predicted it.
Galloway into election denial too?