Judge May Keep Sheriff Joe Conviction Despite Trump Pardon

[driftdiver]

That has nothing to do with this lawless Sheriff or the inexplicable support for his lawless behavior.

Sheriff's are the law in their county.  If he was so lawless why did they o my get him on a political witch hunt.

Shuudap if that's all you got.

[240B]

That has nothing to do with this lawless Sheriff or the inexplicable support for his lawless behavior.

"lawless" Really. I never thought I would ever hear a Liberal Democrat talking about 'Law'.


You are amazing. Your blinders, I could never ware them. But they suit you. Carry on my brother.

[Cyber Liberty]

That has nothing to do with this lawless Sheriff or the inexplicable support for his lawless behavior.

New York lawyers don't dictate to Arizona Sheriffs.  We're funny that way. Deal with it.

Let me know if anybody you know personally gets murdered by illegals, as I have.  Until then you are nothing but the peanut gallery.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Bottom line on this entire thread:

- A federal judge made a ruling on the Sheriff.

- A President pardoned the Sheriff as per his prerogative as per Constitution.  In almost all cases of Presidential pardons, this should end any further legal activity.

- The judge is pissed off as he/she/it was over-ruled and decided to 'take matters into his/her/its own hands', regardless of the Constitution.  He/she/it declares the matter is not over until 'he/she/it says it is over'.

- This is NOT the Supreme Court deciding this , it is a minor federal judge.

[Oceander]

Apparently its explicable to all but you and one or two other dead enders.

It's pretty explicable, and pretty sordid:  you don't really care for the rule of law or the Constitution, you just want a bully on your side who'll trash people the way a liberal trashes people. 

Arpaio broke the law, plain and simple, and bragged about it.  If he was a liberal LEO, y'all would be shrieking to the rafters about rule of law and corruption.  But he's a bleep, so he's next in line for sainthood, not despite his breaking the law, but because he broke the law. 

[Oceander]

Bottom line on this entire thread:

- A federal judge made a ruling on the Sheriff.

- A President pardoned the Sheriff as per his prerogative as per Constitution.  In almost all cases of Presidential pardons, this should end any further legal activity.

- The judge is pissed off as he/she/it was over-ruled and decided to 'take matters into his/her/its own hands', regardless of the Constitution.  He/she/it declares the matter is not over until 'he/she/it says it is over'.

- This is NOT the Supreme Court deciding this , it is a minor federal judge.

Then take it up with the appeals court!!!   Geez Louise!  That's what courts of appeal are there for: to check the excesses of the lower courts (in part).

[IsailedawayfromFR]

That has nothing to do with this lawless Sheriff or the inexplicable support for his lawless behavior.

Are you again arguing that the legal system was NOT duly executed as per Constitution?

You are no better than a pissed off judge.  The man was PARDONED, yet you continue to restate some type of lawlessness is still present. IT IS NOT.  IT IS OVER

[driftdiver]

It's pretty explicable, and pretty sordid:  you don't really care for the rule of law or the Constitution, you just want a bully on your side who'll trash people the way a liberal trashes people. 

Arpaio broke the law, plain and simple, and bragged about it.  If he was a liberal LEO, y'all would be shrieking to the rafters about rule of law and corruption.  But he's a bleep, so he's next in line for sainthood, not despite his breaking the law, but because he broke the law.

How did he break the law?

[Cyber Liberty]

Then take it up with the appeals court!!!   Geez Louise!  That's what courts of appeal are there for: to check the excesses of the lower courts (in part).

Are you willing to take the case pro bono?  No?  Then STFU.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

It's pretty explicable, and pretty sordid:  you don't really care for the rule of law or the Constitution, you just want a bully on your side who'll trash people the way a liberal trashes people. 

Arpaio broke the law, plain and simple, and bragged about it.  If he was a liberal LEO, y'all would be shrieking to the rafters about rule of law and corruption.  But he's a bleep, so he's next in line for sainthood, not despite his breaking the law, but because he broke the law.

One more time for those dense idiots out there.

IT IS OVER.

Go on the Hillary book tour if you wish to continue to pound this.  You and she are two of a kind.

[Oceander]

Are you again arguing that the legal system was NOT duly executed as per Constitution?

You are no better than a pissed off judge.  The man was PARDONED, yet you continue to restate some type of lawlessness is still present. IT IS NOT.  IT IS OVER

You don't read very well, do you?  The issue is what are all the collateral consequences of a pardon, including whether the underlying conviction must be wiped out as if it never happened or not.

None of that is explicit just within the word "pardon" or the Constitution and therefore it must be interpreted.  In the first instance, the judge to do that would be this judge.  If Arpaio isn't happy with the result, then he can appeal that decision. 

If it's as clear and black-and-white as you say, then the court of appeals should have no problem summarily undoing this judges decision. 

[Cyber Liberty]

How did he break the law?

Doesn't matter to the lawyer.  Let the defendant blow all the money he has to prove his innocence.  Easy Peasy to the lawyer, who collects the money.  The sky's the limit.

In case anybody is paying the least amount of attention, this Sheriff is not wealthy, and is not getting outside cash, like a Clinton.

[Cyber Liberty]

You don't read very well, do you?  The issue is what are all the collateral consequences of a pardon, including whether the underlying conviction must be wiped out as if it never happened or not.

None of that is explicit just within the word "pardon" or the Constitution and therefore it must be interpreted.  In the first instance, the judge to do that would be this judge.  If Arpaio isn't happy with the result, then he can appeal that decision. 

If it's as clear and black-and-white as you say, then the court of appeals should have no problem summarily undoing this judges decision.

You are the one not paying attention.

[Oceander]

Are you willing to take the case pro bono?  No?  Then STFU.

GFYS

Why should I bother helping some lawless jackass?  He got less than he deserved.

[Oceander]

Doesn't matter to the lawyer.  Let the defendant blow all the money he has to prove his innocence.  Easy Peasy to the lawyer, who collects the money.  The sky's the limit.

In case anybody is paying the least amount of attention, this Sheriff is not wealthy, and is not getting outside cash, like a Clinton.

Uh, a pardon is predicated on guilt, not innocence.  And courts have held that acceptance of a pardon is an implicit admission of guilt. 

[Oceander]

Apparently one doesn't have to go too far to find Antifa.  They're right here. 

[Cyber Liberty]

GFYS

Why should I bother helping some lawless jackass?  He got less than he deserved.

Lawyers are famous, in their own minds, for being able to take any side on an argument.  You failed.  Other than the post you just answered, you haven't read a goddammed word I wrote.

[driftdiver]

GFYS

Why should I bother helping some lawless jackass?  He got less than he deserved.

Why cause he was trying to stop illegals? 

[Suppressed]

Google it yourself.

BoP on you.

You get called on it and can't deliver.

Got it.

[Suppressed]

There are a multitude of articles on it.  Do a google.

Google yields not a thing supporting that claim.

[Cyber Liberty]

Why cause he was trying to stop illegals?

New York lawyers love illegals.  Illegals don't kill their loved ones.  Just ours.

[driftdiver]

Google yields not a thing supporting that claim.

Then you're doing it wrong. 

[Cyber Liberty]

Google yields not a thing supporting that claim.

Well then, Sheriff Arpaio has no court date.  I guess we were all wrong. 

[Suppressed]

- A President pardoned the Sheriff as per his prerogative as per Constitution.  In almost all cases of Presidential pardons, this should end any further legal activity.

Only because in nearly every other case of Presidential pardons, the judicial process is allowed to proceed, with the pardon to follow.  Don't blame anyone else if Trump made a special case.

[Suppressed]

Arpaio broke the law, plain and simple, and bragged about it.  If he was a liberal LEO, y'all would be shrieking to the rafters about rule of law and corruption.  But he's a bleep, so he's next in line for sainthood, not despite his breaking the law, but because he broke the law.