"Anthony wrote in her diary in 1873 that her trial for voting was 'The greatest outrage History ever witnessed.' She was not allowed to speak as a witness in her own defense, because she was a woman. At the conclusion of arguments, Judge Hunt dismissed the jury and pronounced her guilty. She was outraged to be denied a trial by jury. She proclaimed, 'I shall never pay a dollar of your unjust penalty.' To pay would have been to validate the proceedings. To pardon Susan B. Anthony does the same."
From "Susan B. Anthony Museum Rejects President Trump's Pardon Of The Suffragist" (NPR). The headline says the "museum" rejected the pardon, but to be technical, it's the executive director, Deborah L. Hughes.
Is accepting a pardon for an unjust conviction like paying a fine that is the sentence for an unjust conviction?
To answer yes — as the museum's director does — you must be thinking that the conviction was never anything real. It's simply a nullity, so you don't pay the fine and you don't want a pardon. Either fine-paying or pardon-accepting gives substance to the thing that you consider nothing.
To answer no is easier, but that doesn't mean it is more desirable. All you need to say is that the fine is a burden but the pardon is the relief from a burden or the fine expresses the idea that you were wrong but the pardon expresses some other idea, perhaps that you were completely in the right but also possibly that you did commit a crime but we forgive or we like you so much anyway that we want to do something beneficent for you.
Has Trump reacted to the pardon-rejection yet? What should he say? He could say that the executive director of the museum is entitled her opinion, but he thinks Susan B. Anthony would appreciate the gesture? But I think he should say that he agrees with the museum that Susan B. Anthony doesn't need a pardon because she was a great woman, dedicated to a great cause, and her greatness dwarfs the petty conviction that was imposed on her, but he wanted to do the little part that he could and to correct the record books and remove the blot, and that he cheerfully accepts the rejection of the pardon.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
९३ टिप्पण्या:
Trump is the Pavlov president.
Feminist says orange Man Bad!
I'm shocked, shocked there is gambling at Rick's.
SBA is dead and the person who happens to be running the museum in 2020 and not 1990 or 2027 doesn't have the right to speak for her any more than any rando schmo on the street
This year's Thanksgiving turkey has mixed emotions right about now.
you were completely in the right but also possibly that you did commit a crime but we forgive
This is my take, regardless of the rightness of the law, she deliberately committed the violation. Regardless of the legitimacy of her conviction she purposely intended to break the law.
The pardon acknowledges that the law was wrong and that she was right and deserves relief from an injustice.
To decline the pardon is just petty Orangemanbad bullshit.
Susan B. Anthony wasn't a "great woman", she was a nut. A crank. That's how she was seen during her lifetime, and trying to change that because woman EVENTUALLY were allowed to vote is wrong.
Woman weren't given the vote, because politics in the 19th century was almost entirely about Public Safety, foreign policy, and establishing the rules for conducting business. And since women couldn't fight in wars, and weren't involved in business they had no reason to be voting. Its only after society became more wealthy and we began to have large numbers of office jobs and began spending $$ on social welfare, that it made sense to give women the vote. And World War I, war had become so industrialized that women became a vital part of the war effort.
In any case, if women had TRULY wanted the vote, they would've nagged their husbands into giving it to them. Instead, they didn't give a rats ass, and other than a few cranks, they made no effort to procure it, until after WW I. Even today, 40% of women don't vote in the off-year elections.
I think the bigger question is; should an unrelated (I'm assuming, here) person be able to reject a pardon on behalf of another person, either living or deceased?
He should tell the moron director (woker than thou) to go fuck herself.
Leftism is a cancer. Speaking of which, if Trump cured it he would still be hated.
These people are sick...with actual mental issues. I wish them nothing but pain and misery for the rest of their pathetic lives.
Who cares what they think?
Guess if Orange Man wins again, Anthony will be protesting at the “pussy protest” again
The museum director would have to change all her exhibits. With the pardon, the past truly becomes the past. That would be OK if she could say that the pardon came from a Democrat or a Truth Commission. But she would have to mention the dread word, "Trump," and mention it approvingly and this she cannot do. Moreover, there's a little hint or reminder in this pardon that the future will not see the present as the present sees itself and that a divisive figure who is a flashpoint of conflict with the powers of today may well be a hero to future generations.
To pay would have been to validate the proceedings. To pardon Susan B. Anthony does the same.
Trump has stolen their empty, symbolic gestures.
Defund NPR.
Well, hey, if dead Democrats can vote, why can't they reject presidential executive orders?
Or maybe it’s time that the Untied States of America conceded Anthony’s point that the prosecution was a miscarriage of justice. in the form of a pardon.
Jesus wouldn’t have pardoned her. I know it.
What if the judge had dismissed the jury as he did but then found her not guilty. Would that verdict have been rejected?
I bet you a million dollars if it had been Obama, or GOD FORBID Hillary Clinton who pardoned her, there would be parades in the streets....
Enquiring minds want to know
Had Obama pardoned SBA the museum director would have gushed in ecstasy at the historic act that has finally brought justice to a woman wronged by such an unjust system.
A former law professor posts on this question without mentioning Burdick v. United States even in passing?
Isn't a pardon recognition of the governments past injustice rather than relief for a long dead Susan B Anthony? The museum director is simply playing politics.
How about telling the museum that unless they can contact the spirit world, they have no ability to speak for Susan B. Anthony, and they can kiss my giant presidential ass?
Why does this remind me of the first time I made the mistake of opening the door for a (New York) feminist lawyer? At least I'm glad that I didn't beg her pardon.
If women continue to exercise that right as they have been, they won't have it much longer.
Trump shouldn't respond at all. The rest of us should point out that the Susan B. Anthony Museum is not Susan B. Anthony. They don't own her or speak for her; their opinion is no more legitimate or newsworthy than anybody else's. And then we laugh at the petty stupidity of these people who think we don't realize they would happily accept the pardon if it were delivered by President Hillary or President Harris or even President Obama or Biden.
There once was a judge named Hunt
With Susie B he was rather blunt
He said, and I quote:
"Girls don't have the vote!
"You're guilty for this little stunt."
But Trump set the verdict aside,
An unjust sentence I cannot abide!
Deb Hughes was object-ful
"It's so disrespectful!"
To Susan B-atified.
"We don't like your silly plan,
Please keep your pardon you bad Orange Man!"
That made Donald grin,
"I got under your skin."
And he went to go work on his tan.
Fuck it. Defund the museum. Let them go find work in the USPS.
Susie should have minded her p’s and q’s.
Only a commutation of sentence would have validated the proceedings.
A pardon overturns the basis for conviction.
Having fellow citizens on the Left is like a bad marriage. If you do something wrong that hurt her and admit it, and then do your damnedest to not do it again and then do a little something nice to kiss and make up, but she never forgives and never forgets--the marriage is doomed. If she makes every fault of yours into the thing that hurt her--the marriage is doomed. If she makes a special monument to the thing that hurt, and puts in the center of the house and strokes it everyday while glaring at you--the marriage is doomed. You are married to an emotionally disturbed person and there is little hope of reconciliation.
Good citizens are stuck in a relationship with the Left, the Left never forgives and never forgets. They are emotionally disturbed. There will be no reconciliation in my life time.
I thank God I didn't marry an emotionally disturbed person. Emotionally damaged, for sure, everyone is. But, you can work through emotionally damaged people. You can't reason with the insane.
Howard is still enquiring. SB Anthony is still dead.
Judging from the blather coming out of the museum director's mouth, I'm beginning to question the wisdom of the 19th amendment.
Has Trump reacted to the pardon-rejection yet? What should he say?
He should say, "Not one of the original women activists would recognize, let alone support, what modern feminism has become."
Bravo BarrySanders20!
She could pay with Susan B Anthony dollars. You can get them at the NJ Turnpike as change.
Sasquatch gave us women's rights anyway. She has her own dollar too.
A former law professor posts on this question without mentioning Burdick v. United States even in passing?
Thanks Prole, I was about to ask if a pardon could be refused, Burdick answers that. Does this mean, however, that a person cannot be pardoned posthumously? I believe that Bill Clinton and George W. Bush each granted at least one posthumous pardon (Clinton to Lt. Henry Flipper, convicted of embezzling funds while working in the Army's accounting department in 1881 and Bush to Charles Winters, convicted of smuggling B-17 bombers to Israel just after it was formed in violation of the Neutrality Act). There have been many more state-level posthumous pardons - are these invalid because the person pardoned could not present the pardon to the courts?
A pardon does not ratify a conviction. Often pardons are granted to overturn the conviction of an innocent person. Pardons are also granted when, as here, the conviction was the result of an abuse of judicial or prosecutorial power. And, also as here, pardons are granted where, with hindsight, we've decided the law was unjust and the conduct never should have been considered criminal. In part because of her conviction and the heavy handed actions of the judge in her trial, Susan B. Anthony helped the nation correct a large error by granting women the vote. Pardoning her for the 'crime' of voting does not ratify her conviction. It does the opposite. It recognizes that we were wrong to consider her voting to have been a crime.
The stupid museum lady should have kept her mouth shut and this action by the President would have faded from the news in 48 hours. Now people are talking about it, thinking that Mr. Trump may not be quite the misogynist that his enemies are accusing him of being, maybe he's a good guy or at least capable of doing good things. Now it's something the Pres can work into his rally speeches.
Stupid museum lady.
Trump didn't give Flynn a pardon, instead he got Barr to get the conviction vacated. If that is ultimately granted, doesn't Susan B. Anthony deserve the same?
SensibleCitizen is correct.
I wonder how long before Nat Turner and John Brown get a pardon. Maybe in the last days of Kamala's second term. It's still kind of controversial. Maybe she could grant the pardon in conjunction with the dedication of the Nat Turner's statue on the Washington Mall.
Hughes is a geek, a nerd, a huffy librarian. I hope she plays D&D because she'd be good at it.
Has Howard accused Susan B Anthony of being a Confederate yet? That usually happens about now in every other story.......
Rob: "How about telling the museum that unless they can contact the spirit world, they have no ability to speak for Susan B. Anthony, and they can kiss my giant presidential ass?"
Sounds like Hillary just found a job!
Clinton summons the dead for advice
By Tom Purcell
Sept. 22, 2016
One other option. Since Inga has long claimed to be able to read the minds of others (Just You Wait Until Mueller Presents His Findings!!), perhaps she also has the power to read the minds of the long ago departed.
So, that's good right? We have at least 2 options......
One thing is not like the other thing.
As already noted, the museum cannot speak for Susan B Anthony. They are playing politics; they cannot 'reject' the pardon.
However, they should include, in the Museum, that she was pardoned by President Donald Trump. That is probably a sticking point.
Next, feminists will apologize for their sex chauvinistic ideology, and Planned Parenthood (e.g. selective-child, cannibalized-child). But, they won't, because they think they are on the left side of history, and they are. As for voting rights, the Constitution never discriminated by sex nor race, but it is worth recognizing that diversity dogma was a problem, and albeit with disparate distribution, but with progress denial of individual dignity, denial of individual conscience, affirmative discrimination, color blocs, and color quotas have been recycled, and renewed.
Like battles, today’s VIRTUE SIGNALING is a race to be the firtest with the mostest.Trump won. The immaculate conception of Susan attitude is a loser.
I always thought the reason for a pardon powers was to correct political prosecutions. The pardon tells me the President thinks her prosecution was wrong and ought to be corrected. Alas, the "rejection" of it is as silly as singers demanding Trump not play their music. It's TDS.
It's not Trump's pardon. The President represents the People and our [unPlanned] Posterity. The pardon is a formal apology for the rampant, sometimes rabid diversity that, despite Constitutional law (less the Twilight Amendment), denied women equal rights. The executive director is coloring people by denying their individual dignity, their individual conscience, and an opportunity to reconcile with the past.
Wait, what? Was the museum convicted or the woman? Who asked them?
What small, petty nobodies play-acting at being somebodies.
robother said... “ Why does this remind me of the first time I made the mistake of opening the door for a (New York) feminist lawyer? At least I'm glad that I didn't beg her pardon.”
I remember something I read years ago about a gentleman from the South who went to New York and, upon opening the door for a female colleague, got a sharp rebuke. He had an excellent response: “I did not open the door because you are a woman. I opened it because I am a gentleman.”
"Having fellow citizens on the Left is like a bad marriage."
Yes. This is why the east and west coasts should be spun off into their own little insane asylums. If we divest of those places, we can go to work on normalizing Chicago and Minneapolis, Madison and Austin.
Why didn't they just claim her ghost said she declines the pardon? It would have about as much credibility as some museum curator spouting off...
"Is accepting a pardon for an unjust conviction like paying a fine that is the sentence for an unjust conviction?"
No. One of the reasons that the President can give pardons is so the President can correct miscarriages of justice. So there is no sense in which accepting the pardon == accepting the conviction as legitimate
"Has Trump reacted to the pardon-rejection yet? What should he say?"
He shoudl ignore the director of the SBA museum as a political hack who has no legitimate or valuable input on the subject.
Because that is in fact the case here
The pardon really says nothing about SBA or her actions. It says that the system, or society, made a big mistake and is now doing what can be done to correct it. The rejection, like all Democrat and media resistance, obstruction, and distraction, says that the Left would rather have an issue than a solution. The last thing Progressives want to see is actual progress, because that means less reason to give "all power to the soviets," i,e. them.
Earnest Prole said...
A former law professor posts on this question without mentioning Burdick v. United States even in passing?
Who would she. it's just about as completely off point as a case could be.
1: Wilson issued the pardon to take away Burdick's ability to use the 5th Amendment to not have to testify. SBA is not harmed in any way by this pardon.
2: Burdick personally rejected the pardon. SBA is dead. The "Executive Director of an SBA Museum" is not SBA, is not a descendant of SBA, and has no legal right to speak for SBA
So, other than the fact that none of the important elements of the case are replicated in this case, it's totally on point!
/sarc
CJinPA said...
He should say, "Not one of the original women activists would recognize, let alone support, what modern feminism has become."
Ooh, CJinPA wins the thread
So, leftists not only vote on behalf of the dead ... they now speak for them, too?
Left Bank of the Charles said...
Trump didn't give Flynn a pardon, instead he got Barr to get the conviction vacated. If that is ultimately granted, doesn't Susan B. Anthony deserve the same?
Way to demonstrate your utter lack of a clue, Leftie
Flynn's conviction isn't final. So, since the prosecution was an utter miscarriage of justice that repeatedly violated the Brady rules about the Constitutional duties of a prosecutor, the new honest prosecutors "requested" that teh judge dismiss the case with prejudice (make it so the government can never again bring the case).
This was and is the proper thing to do
SBA's conviction is final. The prosecution can no longer withdraw the case. So a pardon is required
But, good job making the point that wherever justice is, teh Democrats are on the other side
This reminds me of the librarian who wrote a big screed about how "The Cat in the Hat" is racist when Melania Trump donated the book to children's libraries. Oh, and then a photo the librarian had posted of herself on Facebook dressed as the very same Cat in the Hat was found. This is all so boring - don't these people know what bores they are?
Tit for twat
The museum has shot itself in the foot: They are dedicated to Susan B. Anthony and have an obligation to record her place in history. Trump has made history by ceremoniously pardoning Anthony. The museum is not a spokesman for Anthony and can neither accept nor reject anything on her behalf.
Trump should convene some forum where the judge who sentenced/fined Susan B Anthony is investigated and impeached for not allowing jury verdict.
I am seeing the judge was nominated and approved for USSC.
let us redo that nomination hearing for future aspirational Senate Candidates. (Law School moot Senate or something)
Marshall Rose said...
you were completely in the right but also possibly that you did commit a crime but we forgive
This is my take, regardless of the rightness of the law, she deliberately committed the violation. Regardless of the legitimacy of her conviction she purposely intended to break the law.
---------==============
I am not getting this - if she violated a law - why not simply change the law?
why Constitutional amendment? sledgehammer to a fly/flea etc.
Left Bank said Trump didn't give Flynn a pardon, instead he got Barr to get the conviction vacated. If that is ultimately granted, doesn't Susan B. Anthony deserve the same?
These are really two different things. With Flynn, the conviction was vacated because the government lacked sufficient evidence to continue prosecution and/or committed prosecutorial misconduct sufficient to deny a fair trial to Flynn - so the conviction (and I am not actually sure it ever got that far - when does a plea become a conviction?) was vacated. With SBA, there were laws in the books, she clearly broke said laws, and was (under the then-existing set of laws) fairly convicted. The pardon comes in as a condemnation of the law under which she was convicted, rather than a signal that she didn't really violate the then-existing law.
The Press in particular, and the left in general would be well served to simply admit to the occasional gesture of goodwill. They don't even have to applaud or endorse it, just don't use every freaking opportunity to restate your anti-Trump bona-fides! It makes them look petty and pathetic to normal people.
AA - come on? It's just more 'Leftist' bull pushed by a 'true believer'. Look at the disaster at 'The Lancet' kerfuffle [ hydroxychloroquine or chloroquineon] pushed by another 'Leftist' which had to be withdrawn because if was false. The Left's intent is not to fix anything - their sole modus operandi is destroy current society. Then they believe they have the power to rebuilt society in their own image. That's so naive - not even the best Army in the World will be able to put the resultant anarchy (genie) back in the bottle.
Marshall Rose said...
To decline the pardon is just petty Orangemanbad bullshit.
8/21/20, 10:25 AM
Trump should tweet out things like:
"Breathing is good for you!" just to make all the libs hold their breath until they suffocate themselves.
He should also tweet out "DON'T SET YOURSELF on FIRE!", "Don't skydive without a parashoot!" and other such common sense things. Watching the left try to denounce it all would be epic.
Todd @ 2:57: Also...“I want to emphasize – Never feed a marshmallow to a grizzly bear like this”
Women got the vote on speculation anyway. It was hoped that they'd learn to reason like men. That should have been put into the enabling amendment.
I hereby reject any pardon offered to Birkel. Even a pardon for, you know, that.
I wish he had pardoned Snowden. Then Hillary could have refused it.
"Women got the vote on speculation anyway. It was hoped that they'd learn to reason like men."
Shit! Let's hope they can do better than that!
Of course she would like it. She might shy away from the publicity unearned? But this stimulates her legacy. It brought some wisdom to a new generation.
The greatest outrage History ever witnessed.
Only someone remarkably ignorant or remarkably arrogant (two defining characteristics of the modern American leftist) could write that sentence. Susan B. Anthony was an unloved and unloveable horse-faced harridan. Perhaps the single person who was close to Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, eventually found her insufferable. (Funny how Suffrage! has been so often the screech of the insufferable.)
The Susan B. Anthony Museum sounds like the punchline of one of those off-color riddles of the past, e.g. What's the smallest room in the world? The Museum of Italian War Heroes. No doubt it exists to provide a few modern unlovable horse-faced harridans a comfortable living at the expense of a richly endowed but poorly managed foundation.
But I think he should say that he agrees with the museum that Susan B. Anthony doesn't need a pardon because she was a great woman... Trump is noted for his frequent misuse of superlatives. One more will go by unnoticed by those who always loudly notice.
"I am not getting this - if she violated a law - why not simply change the law?
why Constitutional amendment? sledgehammer to a fly/flea etc."
Women had been voting in different states stretching back to the 1870s. The Amendment extended it across the whole country. As always, the places where women had the vote were Republican areas.
NPR pounces!
If it isn't a librarian, it's some other overly odorous and officious bureaucrat.
I'm breaking my own rule and commenting before I've read all the previous comments, and I apologize if others have already said this. But the pardon in this case is a recognition by the highest officer of the US Government that the prosecution of Anthony was wrong. Yes, it was. Why didn't a previous President acknowledge that? Because a martyr is more "useful" than a hero? I don't know.
Shit! Let's hope they can do better than that!
That's a high bar. Let's lower it and simply hope they can do better than you.
"I wonder how long before Nat Turner and John Brown get a pardon."
I thought the President's power of pardon was only for Federal crimes. I would assume that Nat and John were tried by state courts, if Nat was a slave then he probably was not tried at all.
Was SBA convicted of a Federal Crime? If not get the Governor to pardon her. I doubt that under the Constitution, an individual has the right to refuse a pardon, dead or alive.
"Women got the vote on speculation anyway. It was hoped that they'd learn to reason like men. That should have been put into the enabling amendment."
If women reasoned like men there would be no reason for them to vote, other than for the glory of it.
It seems bizarre to discuss this in the abstract, as though this is the first time a pardon has ever been issued for civil disobedience or to overturn a wrongful conviction.
Has Trump reacted to the pardon-rejection yet? What should he say?
Why would he react to it? These people have no more claim on Anthony's legacy than anybody else.
Trump has the power to pardon, he does not have the power to void the conviction or rewrite the past.
TDS runs strong with Ms. Hughes. She is just another Democratic operative out to deny Trump credit for anything that might in some small way be a token of good faith with a Democratic Party constituency. There is nothing honest in her position, and treating her as if she is honest is a disservice to the other 7 billion+ people on the planet.
I try to give the benefit of the doubt--but in this case there is no doubt. Can anyone think this would have been her reaction if Bill Clinton or Barack Obama had pardoned Anthony?
Rory said...
"I am not getting this - if she violated a law - why not simply change the law?
why Constitutional amendment? sledgehammer to a fly/flea etc."
Women had been voting in different states stretching back to the 1870s. The Amendment extended it across the whole country. As always, the places where women had the vote were Republican areas.
-------------================
all this makes clear to me is how and when Constitution was become a plaything
Martin said...
Trump has the power to pardon, he does not have the power to void the conviction or rewrite the past.
TDS runs strong with Ms. Hughes. She is just another Democratic operative out to deny Trump credit for anything that might in some small way be a token of good faith with a Democratic Party constituency. There is nothing honest in her position, and treating her as if she is honest is a disservice to the other 7 billion+ people on the planet.
I try to give the benefit of the doubt--but in this case there is no doubt. Can anyone think this would have been her reaction if Bill Clinton or Barack Obama had pardoned Anthony?
-----------================
but they can not and would not and did not : preserving the past such as this is a necessary irritant for D's agitations and tantrums (i wants tantra for plural?) and to hide their historical maledictions and malefactions -
8/21/20, 5:01 PM Rory above said... As always, the places where women had the vote were Republican areas.
I se on further research that a pardon must be accepted by the pardoned and that if accepted there is a presumption of guilt.
Trump is entitled to pardon her. In what way does the director of a museum have the authority to reject the pardon? Does anyone have the authority? I would assume it would have to be a family council of all descendants voting on it.
Pardon's are granted, not offered, to convicts. The government has pardoned the criminal. Tough luck, cookie, you can't reject a pardon any more than you can remain in prison after your sentence is commuted. The paperwork is done, the act is complete.
Also, the Sacajawea dollars were a vast improvement on the SBA scowling harridan coins. When has anyone ever wanted an ancient Karen in their pocket change?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा