Romney on Huckabee: Unlike some people, I never pardoned anyone
posted at 3:30 pm on December 4, 2009 by Allahpundit
An end o’ the week coup de grace for Huck from his archnemesis. Mitt does defend him, kinda sorta, by noting that Huck said he wouldn’t have commuted Clemmons’s sentence if he knew then what he knows now. But c’mon. Of course he wouldn’t have commuted it knowing that Clemmons would end up killing cops. The question is whether he was right to have commuted it at the time based on the facts available. Huck says yes; Mitt, based on the narrow clemency policy he lays out here, implicitly says no way. In fact, his emphasis on using guidelines so that he wasn’t “swung by, you know, personal impressions of people” is especially stinging given the perennial accusations that Huckabee was a sucker for religious appeals. Pretty harsh:
My conclusion was, if somebody has been convicted by a jury of their peers, and they’ve been prosecuted and the police were able to get the evidence necessary to put them behind bars, why in the world would I step in and reverse that sentence?
King asks the perfect follow-up question: If that’s the policy, why have pardon guidelines at all? Just rubber-stamp every jury sentence and be done with it. Romney’s answer is that you need executive discretion for cases of prosecutorial misconduct or exonerating evidence that comes to light later — but that’s really not true. Both of those issues can be, and often are, raised on appeal. Granted, the governor can move faster than an appellate court, but if Mitt’s willing to defer to the judicial process at the jury level, in theory he should be willing to defer to it all the way. If you believe the system works, let it work. The irony of Huckabee’s position is that he’s correct on the theory of executive clemency — i.e. it’s a check on the judiciary to remedy perceived miscarriages of justice — but he can’t quite accept that the executive is, or should be, checked himself by the potential backlash among voters if he abuses the clemency power. He handed out hundreds of pardons and commutations, then acts mystified when he’s blamed for helping scum like Clemmons go free. Too bad.
Update: Commenters remind me that if Huckabee’s gone too far with clemencies, Mitt may not have gone far enough.
Related Posts:
Breaking on Hot Air


It’s come to this: Venezuela approves funds to relieve the toilet-paper shortage

Video: Dem Congressman rips IRS for abuses, threatens bringing in special prosecutor






Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Now there’s a dusty old name…I haven’t seen that sketch for at least ten years. Still remember it was funny!
MelonCollie on March 16, 2013 at 7:35 AM
Cheers:)
There is some amazing irony in your commentary – someone who sounds remarkably like a spoiled child calling me “juvenile” and “deliberately obtuse” for not being able to make sense of your delusional fantasies. I’ll have to leave it to others to make sense of your blatherings – which begin with the false premise- that the narcissistic Marxist grifter Obama and Romney are like ideological fraternal twins. It then wanders off into something I can’t comprehend. I gather it has something to do with being pissed off that Sarah Palin didn’t run as a third party Tea Party candidate, and thus being left with no choice but to stomp your foot, pick up your ball, and stay home? Or maybe you had Ron Paul in mind? Who the hell knows. I’m not going to waste any more time trying to make sense of your nonsensical ‘analysis’.
Buy Danish on March 16, 2013 at 8:37 AM
Romney did not rise to the occasion in the election, so why expect him to do so here?
Sherman1864 on March 16, 2013 at 11:40 AM
He lost by 3%, not a blow out, but a loss is a loss. He is a good and accomplished man who would have been a far better president than Obama who had no real accomplishments before his political life began. Romney isn’t a conservative and maybe that is why he lost but he is a respectable and humble man.
Dollayo on March 17, 2013 at 2:05 AM
He should be sorry he lost because he passed on the opportunity to unseat the Liar of Benghazi (oh, yes, where is that report now? What has the admnistration discovered?).
In a sense, this lack of political judgment disqualified him. We should have known not to nominate a person unable to beat McCain.
virgo on March 17, 2013 at 3:55 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2