Judge May Keep Sheriff Joe Conviction Despite Trump Pardon

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Oh that's right you're a lawyer.  You're gonna back the corrupted system every time.

It's a power thing.  If lawyers start failing to stick the rest of us, their gig is up.

[Oceander]

No, the Constitution does not give that authority to the courts; therefore they are operating extra-Constitutionally.

It is necessarily implied by the grant of the judicial power to the judiciary.  It is a function of the judicial power to interpret and apply the law.  Ergo, if a dispute comes up over the effect of a presidential pardon, it will be the courts who decide that question, and therefore the scope of the pardon power. 

[Oceander]

absolutely.

If Judicial was the sole province to interpret what the Constitution says, then all authority has been ceded to a mob of  unelected black-robes.

I am absolutely, positively certain the Founders never had that intent, no matter what baloney says.

Then you're simply wrong. 

[RoosGirl]

I wonder if the judge said "prove it" when Bill Clinton pardoned the FALN terrorists?  No, I doubt it.

[Oceander]

Oh that's right you're a lawyer.  You're gonna back the corrupted system every time.

That had nothing to do with being a lawyer and everything to do with the fact that he's a big boy who should have known the game he was playing and the consequences he would have to face, including paying for his own defense.  He's getting no worse than the people he arrests get. 

[Oceander]

I wonder if the judge said "prove it" when Bill Clinton pardoned the FALN terrorists?  No, I doubt it.

I wonder if anyone raised a credible, justiciable objection to it and filed a lawsuit over it.  That's how you get the opinion of a judge. 

[Oceander]

My baloney has a first name, it's C-O-N-S-T-I-T-U-T-I-O-N-A-L, my baloney has a second name its A-U-T-H-O-R-I-T-Y.

Too bad you don't know much about the Constitution, then. 

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Too bad you don't know much about the Constitution, then.

Care to quote me where in the Constitution it allows a federal judge of a minor court to usurp Executive authority to pardon someone of a federal crime?

No?  I thought so.

I can certainly point to where Executive is given that authority?  Want me to point it out to you?

When libs find no more solid arguments to use, they Alinsky others by demeaning.  Typical.

[Cyber Liberty]

This judge should be removed and jailed.  Tar and feather might be appropriate too

The judge is clearly operating outside Constitutional boundaries.
 
Arpaio could likely get Sessions, representing the Executive's legal authority, to block the judge's order.  He has as much authority to interpret what the extent of the Constitution's Executive pardon power comprises as much as any federal judge.

'Winning' is a relative term, and I daresay no appellate court or Supreme Court justice would interfer with the Executive exercising his prerogative.

I'd settle for "Impeached" for starters...then let's talk about cooking up some tar.  I could think of a few road pavers in the Valley who would be interested, and we have a couple Ostrich farms nearby too.

[Cyber Liberty]

Boo-hoo for poor little Sheriff Arpaio.  I didn't realize he was such a snowflake.

He does not have infinite resources, @Oceander.  This is something Lawyers like you often lose sight of.  The Process is being used to Punish.  It's telling you're OK with that.

[Cyber Liberty]

I wonder if anyone raised a credible, justiciable objection to it and filed a lawsuit over it.  That's how you get the opinion of a judge.

And the money.  You have to have the money to raise that objection.  Or were you willing to work pro bono?  I don't seem to recall....

[Oceander]

He does not have infinite resources, @Oceander.  This is something Lawyers like you often lose sight of.  The Process is being used to Punish.  It's telling you're OK with that.

I am more aware of that fact than you can know.  And I have little doubt that he knows it and used it to his advantage when arresting people. 

He's not an innocent babe who got caught up in something he had nothing to do with.   He played hardball willingly and now he's on the receiving end.  I don't feel that bad for him. 

[Oceander]

And the money.  You have to have the money to raise that objection.  Or were you willing to work pro bono?  I don't seem to recall....

Such is life.  If nobody bothered to sue, you can't blame the judges for it.

[Cyber Liberty]

I am more aware of that fact than you can know.  And I have little doubt that he knows it and used it to his advantage when arresting people. 

He's not an innocent babe who got caught up in something he had nothing to do with.   He played hardball willingly and now he's on the receiving end.  I don't feel that bad for him.

I can't disagree with you there.  I just wasn't aware the courts are in the business of dispensing Karma, they always told me they were in the Justice business. 

[Cyber Liberty]

Such is life.  If nobody bothered to sue, you can't blame the judges for it.

Would it be OK if I blame the Lawyers who won't let you discuss it without a retainer?

[Oceander]

Care to quote me where in the Constitution it allows a federal judge of a minor court to usurp Executive authority to pardon someone of a federal crime?

No?  I thought so.

I can certainly point to where Executive is given that authority?  Want me to point it out to you?

When libs find no more solid arguments to use, they Alinsky others by demeaning.  Typical.

Article III, which vests the entire judicial power of the US in the courts.  It is a necessary part of the judicial power to say what the law is and what it means, and therefore the courts have the power and authority under the Constitution to say what the scope of a presidential pardon is.  And if this judge has got it wrong, then it should be appealed up to the higher courts for review and correction. 

[Oceander]

Would it be OK if I blame the Lawyers who won't let you discuss it without a retainer?

Don't be stupid.  At least half the people Sheriff Joe arrested got a worse deal than he's getting - money doesn't grow on trees - so if y'all think he's such an innocent victim, and you're so worried he can't afford an appeal, pony up some donations.

[Cyber Liberty]

Don't be stupid.  At least half the people Sheriff Joe arrested got a worse deal than he's getting - money doesn't grow on trees - so if y'all think he's such an innocent victim, and you're so worried he can't afford an appeal, pony up some donations.

Please see comment above where Courts decided they're in the Karma business now.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Article III, which vests the entire judicial power of the US in the courts.  It is a necessary part of the judicial power to say what the law is and what it means, and therefore the courts have the power and authority under the Constitution to say what the scope of a presidential pardon is.  And if this judge has got it wrong, then it should be appealed up to the higher courts for review and correction.

Nope.

It does NOT say that the judicial power is 'what the law is and what it means'.   
It does NOT say it is the sole arbiter of the Constitution.

To say 'it is a necessary part of the judicial power' is NOT within the Constitution.

And it certainly does NOT state anything that says it can determine 'what the scope of a presidential pardon is'.

do you see the pattern yet?

Judges say _____, Constitution does not say _____.

[driftdiver]

Such is life.  If nobody bothered to sue, you can't blame the judges for it.

We don't have a justice system we have a legal system.  Only those with money have any rights.

[Sanguine]

I can't disagree with you there.  I just wasn't aware the courts are in the business of dispensing Karma, they always told me they were in the Justice business.

Justice?  I can go with legal justice, but just plain ol' justice?  Oh, hell, no.

[Cyber Liberty]

Justice?  I can go with legal justice, but just plain ol' justice?  Oh, hell, no.

Well, no.  Since it's established we've been lied to, what difference does it make who we have to pay for it?

[Suppressed]

I am more aware of that fact than you can know.  And I have little doubt that he knows it and used it to his advantage when arresting people. 

He's not an innocent babe who got caught up in something he had nothing to do with.   He played hardball willingly and now he's on the receiving end.  I don't feel that bad for him.

 

[Suppressed]

Care to quote me where in the Constitution it allows a federal judge of a minor court to usurp Executive authority to pardon someone of a federal crime?

The Executive Branch's (Dept of Justice) own guidelines define the pardon as a forgiveness of the punishment, not the crime.  (But of course, Trump ignored his own branch's guidelines and issued the pardon despite breaking several of the points of guidance.)

In any case, a pardon is an "expression of forgiveness," but does not remove the actual conviction.  That's a separate issue, known as expungement.  Others who have been pardoned still have the convictions on their record.

But of course, Joe Arpaio isn't supposed to be held to the law of everyone else, I know.

[Cyber Liberty]

The Department of Justice needs to be renamed the Department of Karma.