Hunter
Biden
got
pardoned,
and
Judge
Mark
Scarsi
is
big
mad
about
it.
In
the
Delaware
gun
indictment,
Judge
Maryellen
Norieka
terminated
the
case
via
minute
order,
while
maintaining
relative
judicial
modesty.
In
contrast,
Judge
Scarsi,
the
Trump
appointee
overseeing
the
tax
case
in
California,
engaged
in
what
can
only
be
described
as
an
act
of
judicial
onanism
on
the
public
docket.
“Rather
than
providing
a
true
and
correct
copy
of
the
pardon
with
the
notice,
Mr.
Biden
provided
a
hyperlink
to
a
White
House
press
release
presenting
a
statement
by
the
President
regarding
the
pardon
and
the
purported
text
of
the
pardon,”
he
breathed
heavily,
adding
that
“The
President’s
statement
illustrates
the
reasons
for
the
Court’s
disapproval,
as
representations
contained
therein
stand
in
tension
with
the
case
record.”
If
Abbe
Lowell
had
just
docketed
the
pardon
itself,
certified
and
in
triplicate,
Judge
Scarsi
wouldn’t
have
been forced
to
yell
at
the
sitting
president.
So
if
you
think
about
it,
the
defendant
was
really
asking
for
it!
Judge
Scarsi
takes
great
umbrage
at
the
suggestion
that
this
prosecution
was
politically
motivated
—
something
he
and
Judge
Norieka
both
insisted
was
impossible
with
President
Biden
in
charge
of
the
Justice
Department.
As
independent
journalist
Marcy
Wheeler
notes,
this
required
wholesale
contortion
of
the
record
by
Scarsi.
It
also
confuses
the
almost
insuperable
standard
to
prove
vindictive
prosecution
with
the
colloquial
and
obviously
true
statement
that
politics
affected
this
process,
which
began
when
Bill
Barr
tapped
David
Weiss
to
investigate
Joe
Biden
and
his
son
and
was
the
subject
of
sustained
pressure
by
Trump
himself
and
his
congressional
allies.
Indeed,
when
the
plea
deal
blew
up
last
summer,
the
GOP
was
perfectly
willing
to
take
credit
for
it.
But
Judge
Scarsi
wasn’t
excited
about
any
of
that.
“The
Constitution
provides
the
President
with
broad
authority
to
grant
reprieves
and
pardons
for
offenses
against
the
United
States,
U.S.
Const.
art.
II,
§
2,
cl.
1,
but
nowhere
does
the
Constitution
give
the
President
the
authority
to
rewrite
history,”
he
huffed,
as
if
the
president’s
ability
to
say
any
fool
thing
he
likes
in
a
signing
statement
is
somehow
up
for
judicial
consideration.
The
court
then
spent
several
paragraphs
performatively
wanking
over
the
fact
that
the
pardon
was
issued
on
December
1,
for
all
crimes
through
December
1,
when
there
were
still
several
hours
left
in
the
day.
Did
this
make
it
a
prospective
pardon,
thus
invalidating
the
entire
exercise?
Sadly,
no.
“Under
the
canon
of
constitutional
avoidance,
the
Court
declines
to
interpret
the
warrant
in
that
manner
and
instead
understands
the
warrant
to
pardon
conduct
through
the
time
of
execution
on
December
1,”
Judge
Scarsi
sighed,
wiping
his
hands
on
his
robe.
“To
the
extent
the
pardon
encompasses
prospective
conduct,
the
Court
deems
the
prospective
component
of
the
pardon
severable
from
the
component
that
demands
the
termination
of
this
proceeding.”
Of
course,
the
canon
of
constitutional
avoidance
generally
leads
judges
to
abstain
from
opining
on
issues
which
are
not
before
them,
and
no
party
here
challenged
the
sufficiency
of
the
pardon.
But
apparently
Judge
Scarsi
could
not
restrain
himself
against
the
powerful
urge
to
spread
his
seed
all
over
the
federal
docket.
Having
had
its
way
with
the
defendant
one
last
time,
the
court
zipped
back
up
its
judicial
breeches,
agreed
to
dismiss
the
case
once
a
verified
copy
of
the
pardon
is
docketed,
and
wandered
off
for
a
cigarette
in
the
chambers
lav.
US
v.
Biden [Delaware
Docket
via
Court
Listener]
US
v.
Biden [California
Docket
via
Court
Listener]
Liz
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.