“Bush did the right thing—these two are not above the law just because we don’t like illegals. They don’t deserve to spend anymore time in prison for their comparatively minor offenses, but they weren’t innocent, either.”
What a ridiculous rationalization. First of all, pardons are part of the president’s legal authority. Therefore, when you pardon someone, you’re not putting them “above the law”.
Secondly, you and Bush are arguing that they’re not above the law when it comes to the verdict, but they are when it comes to the sentence? Was the sentence really that unjust, or was it controversial simply because we don’t like the fact that they were found guilty in the first place? I think the latter.
Bush wanted credit for saving them, but also wanted to avoid as much criticism as possible. It’s as simple as that.
You're confused. I didn't say pardoning someone was putting them "above the law."
Bush wanted credit for saving them, but also wanted to avoid as much criticism as possible. It’s as simple as that.
Only to you. What Bush did was not controversial or placing people "above the law" at all--which is why I didn't claim it or a pardon would be doing that. He did the right thing. A pardon wouldn't have been placing them above the law, but it wouldn't have been deserved.