in which the court suggested that accepting a pardon “may imply guilt.”
That’s what’s called obiter dicta: a side comment with no direct bearing on the case at hand and with no potential to set precedent. And you’re right, Garland (the name of the case) keeps getting cited by people as though it is precedent.
There is no part of the pardon process where admission of guilt is required, not even a checkbox on a form. You either accept a pardon or you don’t. That’s it.
Anyway, the existence (upheld by courts many times) of blanket pardons renders the admission of guilt argument absurd. If you accept a pardon for (for example) any crimes you might potentially be charged with between January and February of 2025, what are you pleading guilty to? Every one of those possible crimes? Really? And yeah, it’s possible to pardon someone for something they haven’t even been charged with yet. The only thing that has to be in the past is the time period the pardon covers.
Further evidence that the Garland dicta is bullshit is that, since the US was founded, pardons have, on occasion, been used to correct miscarriages of justice. In that case, even the person issuing the pardon is of the view that the pardonee is not guilty. So “we’re pardoning you because we think you’re not guilty, and to accept the pardon, you have to admit guilt”? Again, that makes no sense.
That’s what’s called obiter dicta: a side comment with no direct bearing on the case at hand and with no potential to set precedent. And you’re right, Garland (the name of the case) keeps getting cited by people as though it is precedent.
There is no part of the pardon process where admission of guilt is required, not even a checkbox on a form. You either accept a pardon or you don’t. That’s it.
Anyway, the existence (upheld by courts many times) of blanket pardons renders the admission of guilt argument absurd. If you accept a pardon for (for example) any crimes you might potentially be charged with between January and February of 2025, what are you pleading guilty to? Every one of those possible crimes? Really? And yeah, it’s possible to pardon someone for something they haven’t even been charged with yet. The only thing that has to be in the past is the time period the pardon covers.
Further evidence that the Garland dicta is bullshit is that, since the US was founded, pardons have, on occasion, been used to correct miscarriages of justice. In that case, even the person issuing the pardon is of the view that the pardonee is not guilty. So “we’re pardoning you because we think you’re not guilty, and to accept the pardon, you have to admit guilt”? Again, that makes no sense.