Judge May Keep Sheriff Joe Conviction Despite Trump Pardon

[mystery-ak]

Judge May Keep Sheriff Joe Conviction Despite Trump Pardon

Anders Hagstrom
Justice Reporter
10:46 AM 09/15/2017

 

A U.S. district judge may refuse to rescind Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s conviction for ignoring a court order, despite President Donald Trump’s pardon, according to a Thursday filing.

President Trump pardoned Arpaio Aug. 25, but U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton said the federal government would need to convince her to drop Arpaio’s conviction. According to Nixon v. United States, a presidential pardon only voids punishment for a crime — it does not necessarily rescind a conviction, the Washington Post reported. If federal attorneys fail to convince her, Bolton said she will simply drop the criminal case against Arpaio but let his conviction stand.

Arpaio was convicted in July of criminal contempt for defying a federal court order to stop detaining individuals suspected of being in the country illegally. The former Arizona sheriff is known for his tough-on-crime stance, and he supported Trump during the presidential campaign.

more
http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/15/judge-may-keep-sheriff-joe-conviction-despite-trump-pardon/

[Suppressed]

Makes sense.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

can someone please explain why this is important and where in Nixon v United States this is clarified?

Some lowly federal judge is attempting to subvert the express Constitutional power given the Executive sure sounds like spite and judicial over-reach.

[jmyrlefuller]

To eliminate the punishment without eating the conviction is a commutation, not a pardon. Pardon strikes it from the record. Besides, pardon powers are expressly granted to the executive branch alone in the Constitution. The judge has no jurisdiction to make this kind of declaration.

[Cyber Liberty]

I wonder if a Judge couple be found in contempt for this action?  As @jmyrlefuller says, Trump did not issue a commutation, as was done for Scooter Libby, it was a full Pardon, and I don't think a Federal Judge can dictate the terms of that.

The House should be drafting Impeachment charges for Bolton right now.

[Free Vulcan]

I'd say give the judge her pyrrhic victory, but I think this needs to be pursued on principle and slapping down the judicial here, as it is beyond her power, per definition of pardon.

[Oceander]

To eliminate the punishment without eating the conviction is a commutation, not a pardon. Pardon strikes it from the record. Besides, pardon powers are expressly granted to the executive branch alone in the Constitution. The judge has no jurisdiction to make this kind of declaration.

Not entirely correct.  Under current understanding, a pardon does not wipe out the guilt.  And commutation is, technically, the substitution of a lesser punishment in place of a greater punishment. 

Discussion:  www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R44571.html

[Cyber Liberty]

Not entirely correct.  Under current understanding, a pardon does not wipe out the guilt.  And commutation is, technically, the substitution of a lesser punishment in place of a greater punishment. 

Discussion:  www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R44571.html

That's an interesting article, even I could understand it.

Until the mid 20th Century (1974?) the Pardon power was absolute, and restored the one Pardoned to the status of "innocent."  That's when a court left the door open to the concept of "Pardoned but not innocent."  Seems like a bit of encroachment by the Court upon the Executive, at a time the Executive was in a weakened position politically.

[skeeter]

To eliminate the punishment without eating the conviction is a commutation, not a pardon. Pardon strikes it from the record. Besides, pardon powers are expressly granted to the executive branch alone in the Constitution. The judge has no jurisdiction to make this kind of declaration.

The judge citing Arpaio's 'announcing to the world and to his subordinates that he was going to continue business as usual no matter who said otherwise' as a reason to ignore a presidential pardon is hilarious. I'm sure the judge missed the irony of her comments completely.

[Sanguine]

The judge citing Arpaio's 'announcing to the world and to his subordinates that he was going to continue business as usual no matter who said otherwise' as a reason to ignore a presidential pardon is hilarious. I'm sure the judge missed the irony of her comments completely.

Apparently so.

[Oceander]

That's an interesting article, even I could understand it.

Until the mid 20th Century (1974?) the Pardon power was absolute, and restored the one Pardoned to the status of "innocent."  That's when a court left the door open to the concept of "Pardoned but not innocent."  Seems like a bit of encroachment by the Court upon the Executive, at a time the Executive was in a weakened position politically.

Ultimately, it will always be a court that determines the exact contours of the effects of a pardon. 

[Sanguine]

Ultimately, it will always be a court that determines the exact contours of the effects of a pardon.

Why/how does a court have that power?

[Cyber Liberty]

Why/how does a court have that power?

It's yet another case of the Courts arrogating themselves power they were never meant to have.  We have a poster here, who shall remain unnamed (a fixture on threads where there are major fights), who's absolutely dee-lighted by this state of affairs.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Why/how does a court have that power?

It does not.  There is constitutional authority for Executive to issue a pardon, and zero constitutional authority for a minor court to interpret what that means.

Executive wins, everytime.

[Cyber Liberty]

It does not.  There is constitutional authority for Executive to issue a pardon, and zero constitutional authority for a minor court to interpret what that means.

Executive wins, everytime.

In practical terms, it's the minor court winning here.  The Very Biased Judge Bolton is forcing Arpaio to have to shell out more money so she can beat a dead horse.  This should be over for him, and for the Prosecution for that matter, but everybody is still running around the track on her say-so.

[driftdiver]

In practical terms, it's the minor court winning here.  The Very Biased Judge Bolton is forcing Arpaio to have to shell out more money so she can beat a dead horse.  This should be over for him, and for the Prosecution for that matter, but everybody is still running around the track on her say-so.

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

[IsailedawayfromFR]

In practical terms, it's the minor court winning here.  The Very Biased Judge Bolton is forcing Arpaio to have to shell out more money so she can beat a dead horse.  This should be over for him, and for the Prosecution for that matter, but everybody is still running around the track on her say-so.

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.

[Oceander]

Why/how does a court have that power?

The grant of the pardon power in the Constitution doesn't spell out all the details; therefore, someone has to work out the details.  That is what a court does. 

[Oceander]

It does not.  There is constitutional authority for Executive to issue a pardon, and zero constitutional authority for a minor court to interpret what that means.

Executive wins, everytime.

Baloney. 

[driftdiver]

Amazing.  A sheriff gets prosectued federally because he wouldn't stop helping to enforce the law.  The law which the feds were ignoring.

Now the sheriff gets a pardon and the judge tries to ignore the pardon.   Our judiciary is out of control.

[Oceander]

In practical terms, it's the minor court winning here.  The Very Biased Judge Bolton is forcing Arpaio to have to shell out more money so she can beat a dead horse.  This should be over for him, and for the Prosecution for that matter, but everybody is still running around the track on her say-so.

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

[Sanguine]

The grant of the pardon power in the Constitution doesn't spell out all the details; therefore, someone has to work out the details.  That is what a court does.

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

[driftdiver]

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

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

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Baloney.

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.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

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

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.