Ryan breaks with Trump on Arpaio pardon

[Wingnut]

Yes, that's some good perspective.

Lawyers hate Pardons.  No endless Appeals. No hours to bill the client.

[skeeter]

I agree with Ryan.. There is a thing called a Rule of Law.  So was it OK that Andrew Jackson ignored the Supreme Court?  Was it OK that Gov Faubus ignored the Supreme Court in the 1950's ? Arpaio could have appeal the ruling..

The courts tell us voter ID laws are racist. The courts consistently rule in a way that enables illegal immigration.

To a great degree the courts are no longer about law and order.

[RoosGirl]

*Yawn*

oh=0164a33dc027072d52772befbb7641e7&oe=5A1A2A67

I think it's a mistake to get into a "compared to Obama" frame of mind.  Either an action stands on its own or it doesn't.

[Cyber Liberty]

I think it's a mistake to get into a "compared to Obama" frame of mind.  Either an action stands on its own or it doesn't.

That's correct, but it's also good to understand a little about the history of actions like this.  It's not saying "Obama did it too" as much as saying "It's a necessary check on our legal system to keep it just." 

[Oceander]

Lawyers hate Pardons.  No endless Appeals. No hours to bill the client.

Are you crazy?   Get your client a good pardon and you're almost guaranteed more high-paying work than you can handle for years to come.  Getting a client a pardon is like nailing a Hail Mary pass.

[RoosGirl]

That's correct, but it's also good to understand a little about the history of actions like this.  It's not saying "Obama did it too" as much as saying "It's a necessary check on our legal system to keep it just."

Yep, I guess in my mind that is part of deciding whether an action can stand on its own.

[Cyber Liberty]

Are you crazy?   Get your client a good pardon and you're almost guaranteed more high-paying work than you can handle for years to come.  Getting a client a pardon is like nailing a Hail Mary pass.

Doing what?  Counter suits?  Since it doesn't happen all that often, I have no idea what you're talking about but would like to know.

[Cyber Liberty]

Yep, I guess in my mind that is part of deciding whether an action can stand on its own.

Nothing happens in a vacuum.  There are always surrounding circumstances and historical events, so anything be said to be truly "standalone?"

[RoosGirl]

Nothing happens in a vacuum.  There are always surrounding circumstances and historical events, so anything be said to be truly "standalone?"

I don't know, the way you word can cover a WHOLE lot of circumstances.  Right now we're talking about the pardon of Arpaio.  I just can't see saying that Trump pardoning Arpaio is fine because look who Obama pardoned.  Trump's pardon is either okay or it isn't. 

[Cyber Liberty]

I don't know, the way you word can cover a WHOLE lot of circumstances.  Right now we're talking about the pardon of Arpaio.  I just can't see saying that Trump pardoning Arpaio is fine because look who Obama pardoned.  Trump's pardon is either okay or it isn't.

I see your point.  Mine is that sometimes you have to look at history to see if it's OK or not, because history will throw some light on what can happen, whichever way the decision goes.  If there's a Pardon, what can happen?  If there isn't, what would happen differently?

I do agree that using Obama's Pardons to justify Trump's pardon is a little misleading along those lines.  The circumstances are very different.  Can you really compare Pardons of serial major drug dealers to the Pardon of a Sheriff who spent years working for the DEA in Mexico City?

[Emjay]

Ryan breaks with Trump on Arpaio pardon..


Well butter my butt and call me a biscuit cuz I never saw that one coming.

Good biscuit joke.  My daughter-in-law always talks about being on a gravy train with biscuit wheels.

[Emjay]

When a court tells you to do something against the law, you should do it?  I see it very differently.

Me, too.

The courts have way too much power.  They were never supposed to make law... just interpret if laws were constitutional.

And we somehow have acquired a whole passel of liberal judges which it will take a while to get rid of but at least Trump is trying.

[Emjay]

Pardoning Arpaio is another piece of stupid Trump theater.  A little bit of pointless red meat for the Trump worshippers that needlessly inflames everyone else without accomplishing much of any substance.  No new policies of any real meaning were implemented and no real goals were advanced. 

What a pointless waste.

That is your opinion and it is a stupid one.  The only good thing is you said red meat instead of Orange meat ... you just love the word orange.

This pardon was not pointless to the Sheriff.  He's been a good man trying to do right and he was railroaded by a politically correct judge.

It gets old that every time Trump does something most people like a lot, you choose to demean it.

[Wingnut]

I think it's a mistake to get into a "compared to Obama" frame of mind.  Either an action stands on its own or it doesn't.

Baby,

The *Yawn* was the inspired part of my post!  Obummer meme was just a fart in his general direction, His mother smelt of tuna and his father was a hamster.

[Emjay]

Having lived in Arizona these past 18 years, I can confidently inform you that you've no idea what you are talking about. Arpaio was ordered to halt certain types of immigration checks on certain vehicle and other stops by a WILDLY left wing judge with a wildly left wing agenda...under the higher purview of the wildly left wing 9th circuit. Rather than turning his back on his duty, Arpaio continued to have officers run immigration checks on all stops...technically in violation of the judge's order. As such, he was charged with contempt...akin to say, Ghandi being arrested for selling salt without British taxation....doing the right thing in violation of the technicality of a bad law. That said, laws are laws and Arpaio was correctly tried for contempt...and correctly found guilty. Proving that a man who stands up to a bad law must be willing to face the punishment for doing what's right....as such...the President determined that the rightness of Arpaio's actions was greater than the necessity for imposing punishment on him for voiding bad law. As such, and also considering the strong past service and age of the Sheriff, he justly granted a pardon.

The purpose is clear with this pardon...that a legal standard imposed by a wildly left wing court can and should be overturned in a "legal" manner by a president who is constitutionally empowered to do so. He also makes the point...again...that we are a nation of laws AND that we are a nation with a right to establish and maintain our own border/immigration enforcement. All strongly conservative values...so which of these are you opposing?

Amen, brother.  A good post totally wasted on Oceander who has a narrow vision on everything.  He sees the world through orange-colored glasses and his shtick  has been old for way too long.

I would block him but I would still see his stupid avatar.  Maybe I'll block him anyway.

[kevindavis007]

Me, too.

The courts have way too much power.  They were never supposed to make law... just interpret if laws were constitutional.

And we somehow have acquired a whole passel of liberal judges which it will take a while to get rid of but at least Trump is trying.

So if I don't like a court ruling I should be allowed to ignore it right?

[Wingnut]

So if I don't like a court ruling I should be allowed to ignore it right?

When they beat you like a tied up goat because they have no case...yes.

The misdemeanor charge was a ploy to prevent Sheriff Arpaio from having a jury trial.

Because Arpaio was charged only with a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum of six-months in jail, the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee him a right to trial by a jury of his peers. Arpaio and his attorneys repeatedly petitioned for a jury, only to be denied by Judge Bolton in March and again in May. Sources familiar with the proceedings have told Breitbart News the decision to charge only the misdemeanor was likely a ploy by federal prosecutors to avoid a jury trial in the community where Arpaio served as sheriff for more than 20 years

[INVAR]

So if I don't like a court ruling I should be allowed to ignore it right?

Certainly.  Obama did and set the precedent politically.  He decided without any consequence he could ignore laws and rulings he did not like.  As it exists right now, laws and rulings are only binding on us lowly serfs, and the Left uses that to their advantage - because we're the idiots who submit to what we erroneously think is the rule of law - while lawlessness is imposed and practiced.

As a matter of principle, if a court orders me to stop preaching the Gospel or mentioning Jesus - I will ignore the court order.  If a court orders us to turn in our arms - I will ignore the court order.  If the court orders children to be remanded to state custody because the parents home school, the order should be ignored.  I can go on and on.  When the court is just a justification arm of tyranny - it no longer has any authority we have to abide.  All it has (as well as government) is guns their agents will put to our heads to force compliance.

When the government itself is lawless and imposes decrees and rulings that abrogate the God's Laws - it is better to obey God than men.

When courts are imposing tyranny - we have no duty to abide by their rulings and have every right to resist it by use of deadly force should agents of tyrants seek to pursue imposing it.

[Emjay]

So if I don't like a court ruling I should be allowed to ignore it right?

Not for something minor but if it is a matter of principle and you're willing to face the consequences, go ahead.

[Emjay]

So if I don't like a court ruling I should be allowed to ignore it right?

Way, way too simplistic.  The court ruling actually went against federal law.

[libertybele]

I agree with Ryan.. There is a thing called a Rule of Law.  So was it OK that Andrew Jackson ignored the Supreme Court?  Was it OK that Gov Faubus ignored the Supreme Court in the 1950's ? Arpaio could have appeal the ruling..

If I'm not mistaken, he did appeal.  Yes we have the rule of law - however, immigration laws are on the books and they have been ignored. So ... should have he looked the other way as so many others have for years?

[Suppressed]

Not for something minor but if it is a matter of principle and you're willing to face the consequences, go ahead.

I'm glad you think he should face the consequences instead of weaseling out like he did.

[Cyber Liberty]

I'm glad you think he should face the consequences instead of weaseling out like he did.

Did you just call Arpaio a "weasel?"  Asking for a friend.

[Wingnut]

Did you just call Arpaio a "weasel?"  Asking for a friend.

It's okay..you can tell him it was me.

[TomSea]

Arizona Congressman Trent Franks said on Judge Jeannine's show that Arpaio's wife is severely ill, let alone Sherrif Joe being 85!  Franks also said that this episode was a travesty of justice; that a leftist judge ruled on this matter.

https://twitter.com/RepTrentFranks