The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: mystery-ak on September 16, 2017, 02:35:43 pm
-
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/
-
Makes sense.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I wonder if the judge said "prove it" when Bill Clinton pardoned the FALN terrorists? No, I doubt it.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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....
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 _____.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
:thumbsup:
-
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.
-
:thumbsup:
The Department of Justice needs to be renamed the Department of Karma.
-
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.
1. that does not answer the Constitutional nature of the right of the Executive to issue pardons.
2. POTUS is the Executive, not the DOJ. Do you think the Constitution gave power otherwise?
The entire point of all of this is the obvious punitive nature of a federal judge when it comes to a Constitutionally-granted pardon by the President. This judge refuses to allow the case to be dropped from her court in spite of the pardon.
How many of the hundreds and thousands of pardons handed down by previous Presidents did a runaway federal judge do the same thing when a Presidential pardon was made?
-
1. that does not answer the Constitutional nature of the right of the Executive to issue pardons.
2. POTUS is the Executive, not the DOJ. Do you think the Constitution gave power otherwise?
The entire point of all of this is the obvious punitive nature of a federal judge when it comes to a Constitutionally-granted pardon by the President. This judge refuses to allow the case to be dropped from her court in spite of the pardon.
How many of the hundreds and thousands of pardons handed down by previous Presidents did a runaway federal judge do the same thing when a Presidential pardon was made?
None of that matters. Under the newly formed DoK (Department of Karma) Law Enforcement people are not eligible for any kind of pardon because, at least once in their careers, they arrested somebody who didn't get a Pardon, and therefore deserve what's coming to them.
This is what I learned from this thread.
-
None of that matters. Under the newly formed DoK (Department of Karma) Law Enforcement people are not eligible for any kind of pardon because, at least once in their careers, they arrested somebody who didn't get a Pardon, and therefore deserve what's coming to them.
This is what I learned from this thread.
what I learned from thread is that some supposedly smart people actually believe that some unelected black robes rule this country, not the people or those elected by the people.
That is chilling.
-
what I learned from thread is that some supposedly smart people actually believe that some unelected black robes rule this country, not the people or those elected by the people.
That is chilling.
Frankly it scares me to death, because it's a fact that tyrants in black robes effectively DO rule this country. Try arguing with a Judge some time, or refuse to look down when they're yelling at you, you're either be out a bunch of money or thrown in the slammer. Then, because they think you're rude, will find against you in whatever you were there for anyway, regardless of what the law states.
"Judges" are the most arrogant people on the planet, and proud of it, too.
-
1. that does not answer the Constitutional nature of the right of the Executive to issue pardons.
2. POTUS is the Executive, not the DOJ. Do you think the Constitution gave power otherwise?
@IsailedawayfromFR
Nobody is denying the right of the POTUS to issue pardons.
This judge refuses to allow the case to be dropped from her court in spite of the pardon.
Yes, because convictions stand regardless of pardons.
And the DOJ is part of the Executive Branch. The head of the Executive Branch is ignoring the guidelines of his own Administration.
How many of the hundreds and thousands of pardons handed down by previous Presidents did a runaway federal judge do the same thing when a Presidential pardon was made?
I don't know what you mean about runaway judge -- the judge is following the usual procedure, and it's Trump who has changed things (e.g., not waiting for the judicial wheels before issuing his pardon, not waiting 5 years after conviction, pardon for misdemeanor, etc.).
But maybe this will answer your question about how it is for most peons, not St. Joe and God Don:
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS CONCERNING EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY
https://www.justice.gov/pardon/frequently-asked-questions-concerning-executive-clemency
Does a presidential pardon expunge or erase the conviction for which the pardon was granted?
No. Expungement is a judicial remedy that is rarely granted by the court and cannot be granted within the Department of Justice or by the President. Please also be aware that if you were to be granted a presidential pardon, the pardoned offense would not be removed from your criminal record. Instead, both the federal conviction as well as the pardon would both appear on your record. However, a pardon will facilitate removal of legal disabilities imposed because of the conviction, and should lessen to some extent the stigma arising from the conviction. In addition, a pardon may be helpful in obtaining licenses, bonding, or employment. If you are seeking expungement of a federal offense, please contact the court of conviction. If you are seeking expungement of a state conviction, which the Office of the Pardon Attorney also does not have authority to handle, states have different procedures for “expunging” a conviction or “clearing” the record of a criminal conviction. To pursue relief of a state conviction, you should contact the Governor or state Attorney General in the state in which you were convicted for assistance.
I know, I know, I know... Joe and Don operate above the law, rules, and policies. We're supposed to make this a special case for him and wipe out the conviction based on handwaving from the king, unlike how all those "hundreds and thousands of pardons handed down by previous Presidents" were handled.
-
@IsailedawayfromFR
Nobody is denying the right of the POTUS to issue pardons.
Yes, because convictions stand regardless of pardons.
And the DOJ is part of the Executive Branch. The head of the Executive Branch is ignoring the guidelines of his own Administration.
I don't know what you mean about runaway judge -- the judge is following the usual procedure, and it's Trump who has changed things (e.g., not waiting for the judicial wheels before issuing his pardon, not waiting 5 years after conviction, pardon for misdemeanor, etc.).
But maybe this will answer your question about how it is for most peons, not St. Joe and God Don:
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS CONCERNING EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY
https://www.justice.gov/pardon/frequently-asked-questions-concerning-executive-clemency
I know, I know, I know... Joe and Don operate above the law, rules, and policies. We're supposed to make this a special case for him and wipe out the conviction based on handwaving from the king, unlike how all those "hundreds and thousands of pardons handed down by previous Presidents" were handled.
@Suppressed
You appear to have no issue with the political nature of the prosecution. Why is that?
The judge ordered him NOT to enforce the law. An order of questionable validity in the first place.
-
@IsailedawayfromFR
Nobody is denying the right of the POTUS to issue pardons.
Better read what your fellow lib says about that. http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,281405.msg1454538.html#msg1454538 He/she/it thinks the judicial branch decides what is or not a pardon. Fundamentally, that says the Executive reports to him, as he is the only interpreter of the Constitution.
Yes, because convictions stand regardless of pardons.
So a judge who ruled in a case was over-ruled by a Constitutionally-allowed Presidential pardon, yet continues to have the Executive branch stand before him/her/it as he/she/it refuses to just let it go away? Do you not comprehend why that is not petty, spiteful and downright stupid? Why didn't any other judge in the thousands of pardons issued by other Presidents take on with the same logic? Reason: IT IS A POLITICAL HACK WHO IS THE JUDGE.
And the DOJ is part of the Executive Branch. The head of the Executive Branch is ignoring the guidelines of his own Administration.
What in the hell difference is that? Who originally issued those guidelines anyway? Bet you a thousand it was not under the auspices of the current President. You do not seem to understand what is in the Constitution. It vests ALL Executive power within one person. Not his underlings, unless he decides otherwise, not in past presidents or their underlings. The CURRENT President.
It is very telling that some people believe the Constitution is only what an un-elected entity in the Judicial branch thinks it is. That branch is making a mockery of everything the Founders intended for the people of this country - to be self-directed by the citizens.
-
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.
President Trump should issue a concept of the President citation to the judge. Pure theater but would be a nice to see.
-
What I don't get is why supposed conservatives are siding with the leftist political prosecution at the root of this whole fiasco. Can someone explain that one to me?
-
What I don't get is why supposed conservatives are siding with the leftist political prosecution at the root of this whole fiasco. Can someone explain that one to me?
Because conservatives care about the rule of law, not your liberal preference for political favors and treating people different based on who they are.
1) Joe Arpaio was detaining people without evidence of a crime.
2) An injunction against that loathesome behavior was issued.
3) Arpaio bragged about ignoring the legal order.
4) Then switched stories during defence, pretending it wasn't willfull (i.e., criminal) contempt.
5) During legal proceedibgs, his own braggadocio was used against his latter claim.
6) He was convicted for intentionally, willfully, violating a legal court order.
-
Because conservatives care about the rule of law, not your liberal preference for political favors and treating people different based on who they are.
1) Joe Arpaio was detaining people without evidence of a crime.
2) An injunction against that loathesome behavior was issued.
3) Arpaio bragged about ignoring the legal order.
4) Then switched stories during defence, pretending it wasn't willfull (i.e., criminal) contempt.
5) During legal proceedibgs, his own braggadocio was used against his latter claim.
6) He was convicted for intentionally, willfully, violating a legal court order.
And then the duly elected President pardoned him. Should be the end of that.
-
And then the duly elected President pardoned him. Should be the end of that.
Exactly. The penalty goes away, and the conviction stays on his record, just like it does for everyone else.
-
Exactly. The penalty goes away, and the conviction stays on his record, just like it does for everyone else.
Meanwhile, Sheriff Arpaio still has a court date that neither he, nor the Prosecutors I imagine, are the least bit interested in paying for. As was asked upthread, I wonder if the FALN terrorists or Marc Rich, who Clinton Pardoned, ever had to defend their Pardons in court as Arpaio is being compelled to do. :pondering:
-
Meanwhile, Sheriff Arpaio still has a court date that neither he, nor the Prosecutors I imagine, are the least bit interested in paying for. As was asked upthread, I wonder if the FALN terrorists or Marc Rich, who Clinton Pardoned, ever had to defend their Pardons in court as Arpaio is being compelled to do. :pondering:
Or that manning dufus who had his sentence commuted.
-
Meanwhile, Sheriff Arpaio still has a court date that neither he, nor the Prosecutors I imagine, are the least bit interested in paying for. As was asked upthread, I wonder if the FALN terrorists or Marc Rich, who Clinton Pardoned, ever had to defend their Pardons in court as Arpaio is being compelled to do. :pondering:
Do you have a source on the claim that he has to defend the pardon?
-
Do you have a source on the claim that he has to defend the pardon?
There are a multitude of articles on it. Do a google.
-
Do you have a source on the claim that he has to defend the pardon?
Google it yourself.
-
And then the duly elected President pardoned him. Should be the end of that.
Unless you are a lib on this board which says that the judge gets to decide what constitutes a pardon.
-
What we continue to see, since Trump was elected, is a concerted national effort of Courts to overthrow the Executive Branch of government.
This is a civil war. It is an attempted coup d'etat by the Judicial over the Executive. America is founded on three foundations. The Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial. Since the majority of the Legislative and Judicial branches do not recognize the authority of President Trump as leader of the Executive branch simply based on the fact that they do not like him, they are actively blocking (usurping) his authority at any chance they get.
Far from 'interpreting law', the Legislative branch has now taken it upon themselves to create 'law'. And more than that, they are now cancelling Executive orders and creating new ones, based on no authority whatsoever.
If the goal is to disrupt America; if the goal is to disrupt the functioning of the American government, then it doesn't matter if what they are doing is constitutional, or even if it is legal. The amount of time and effort it will take the Trump administration to 'right-the-ship' is their goal. It is a direct form of sabotage. If the goal is just to throw a wrench into the works, it doesn't matter. Just the time it takes to fix it is enough for the saboteur.
They know this. They are counting on it. Until the Supreme Court (if there is still such a thing) puts some kind of blanket restriction on these little nobody judges, to stop them from directly interfering with American National Policy, even if Trump or his administration decides to name a new highway it will be blocked by some judge in some court somewhere in Nowhereville, just to make them have to deal with it.
If disruption is the only goal, without consideration of actual success or even if it makes sense, then that is the simplest thing in world to accomplish. And that is exactly what they are doing.
-
Tinfoil hat time :whistle:
-
Tinfoil hat time :whistle:
They've wiretapped the President. Doesn't get much worse.
-
They've wiretapped the President. Doesn't get much worse.
That has nothing to do with this lawless Sheriff or the inexplicable support for his lawless behavior.
-
That has nothing to do with this lawless Sheriff or the inexplicable support for his lawless behavior.
Apparently its explicable to all but you and one or two other dead enders.
-
240b wrote:
"...Until the Supreme Court (if there is still such a thing) puts some kind of blanket restriction on these little nobody judges, to stop them from directly interfering with American National Policy, even if Trump or his administration decides to name a new highway it will be blocked by some judge in some court somewhere in Nowhereville, just to make them have to deal with it."
Your entire post was right-on.
But... how to put an end to this?
My solution was posted here, if you care to read it:
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,281332.msg1453766.html#msg1453766
I call it "The Trump Doctrine".
-
They've wiretapped the President. Doesn't get much worse.
Apparently based on a warrant. Sounds like Trump stepped in some deep doo-doo after the election. Shouldnt have been hanging around with the likes of Manafort or Flynn. Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas, or worse.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Apparently one doesn't have to go too far to find Antifa. They're right here.
-
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.
-
GFYS
Why should I bother helping some lawless jackass? He got less than he deserved.
Why cause he was trying to stop illegals?
-
Google it yourself.
BoP on you. (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof)
You get called on it and can't deliver.
Got it.
-
There are a multitude of articles on it. Do a google.
Google yields not a thing supporting that claim.
-
Why cause he was trying to stop illegals?
New York lawyers love illegals. Illegals don't kill their loved ones. Just ours.
-
Google yields not a thing supporting that claim.
Then you're doing it wrong.
-
Google yields not a thing supporting that claim.
Well then, Sheriff Arpaio has no court date. I guess we were all wrong.
-
- 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.
-
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.
:thumbsup:
-
Then you're doing it wrong.
He thinks we're stupid.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Federal+Court+Arpiao+pardon+challenge&oq=Federal+Court+Arpiao+pardon+challenge&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i160k1.42086.45215.0.45569.10.10.0.0.0.0.200.1462.0j9j1.10.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.9.1250...33i21k1.0.4MEahBF0peY
-
Then you're doing it wrong.
And you're doing Burden of Proof wrong.
Hint: You're trying to employ a very basic fallacious argument. Here: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
-
Well then, Sheriff Arpaio has no court date. I guess we were all wrong.
Give me ONE legitimate citation where he has a court date to defend his pardon. One.
-
He thinks we're stupid.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Federal+Court+Arpiao+pardon+challenge&oq=Federal+Court+Arpiao+pardon+challenge&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i160k1.42086.45215.0.45569.10.10.0.0.0.0.200.1462.0j9j1.10.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.9.1250...33i21k1.0.4MEahBF0peY
Doesn't show him having to defend the pardon. It's regarding the judicial side of things.
"A public interest law firm, the Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center, sought to file an amicus brief in an Arizona district court, where Arpaio is seeking to vacate a conviction after Trump granted him a pardon last month."
Note, it's to vacate the conviction, not any challenge to the pardon itself.
-
Give me ONE legitimate citation where he has a court date to defend his pardon. One.
See Google search you were apparently too dense to do. Two to three posts up.
-
Doesn't show him having to defend the pardon. It's regarding the judicial side of things.
You are being pedantic. I'm done with you.
-
Doesn't show him having to defend the pardon. It's regarding the judicial side of things.
"A public interest law firm, the Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center, sought to file an amicus brief in an Arizona district court, where Arpaio is seeking to vacate a conviction after Trump granted him a pardon last month."
Note, it's to vacate the conviction, not any challenge to the pardon itself.
Oh, I forgot. You're the guy who says the EPA is a fine organization, only out for the best. My bad.
-
You are being pedantic. I'm done with you.
Pedantic?!?
You and your buddy are the ones totally ignoring the reality of the difference between a pardon and the conviction.
-
Oh, I forgot. You're the guy who says the EPA is a fine organization, only out for the best. My bad.
Citation. Where did I say that? I've never said that, you dishonest slug.
-
You are being pedantic. I'm done with you.
Lawyers are the curse of our society, from politicians to judges to those attempting to justify their own self-worth.
I have dealt with many over my decades of business. I have disdain for them and the two defending them here exemplify why.
Legality is all they believe.
Nothing about morality, about honor, about true justice. Most simply suck.
A judge which decides he/she/it is the only law is one judge we do not need.
-
Pedantic?!?
You and your buddy are the ones totally ignoring the reality of the difference between a pardon and the conviction.
Hey idiotic: I NEVER said anything of the sort.
-
Apparently one doesn't have to go too far to find Antifa. They're right here.
@Oceander That's a bit too far. I don't think you can say they are Antifa...
...Antifa is "Anti-Fascist". These folks supprt Sheriff Arpaio, who used the power of his badge to deprive civil rights. That's more akin to tactics of Fascists.
-
Hey idiotic: I NEVER said anything of the sort.
LOL... You can't even see that I wasn't responding to you, and you call me idiotic?!
:bigsilly:
-
:facepalm2:
-
:2popcorn:
-
I'm going to shut this one down for a while. We'll open it in the morning.
-
LOL... You can't even see that I wasn't responding to you, and you call me idiotic?!
:bigsilly:
yes you are as you referenced more than just him in your post. put some glasses on when you type next time.
-
Good Morning all you crabby people!!!
:th_10444: :th_10444: :th_10444: :th_10444: :th_10444:
-
Good Morning all you crabby people!!!
:th_10444: :th_10444: :th_10444: :th_10444: :th_10444:
I was sort of hoping no one would be crabby this morning.
-
Don't make me stop this car again.....
-
Good Morning all you crabby people!!!
:th_10444: :th_10444: :th_10444: :th_10444: :th_10444:
No one here but us crabby fascists.
-
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/373/265/968.jpg)
-
yes you are as you referenced more than just him in your post. put some glasses on when you type next time.
I referenced "his buddy"...which I guess your solipsism took personally.
-
Frankly it scares me to death, because it's a fact that tyrants in black robes effectively DO rule this country. Try arguing with a Judge some time, or refuse to look down when they're yelling at you, you're either be out a bunch of money or thrown in the slammer. Then, because they think you're rude, will find against you in whatever you were there for anyway, regardless of what the law states.
"Judges" are the most arrogant people on the planet, and proud of it, too.
Both scare me. We have separation of powers and checks and balances for a reason. The 3 brances are supposed to be equal, and the executive and judicial branches should not have fiat powers.
-
Both scare me. We have separation of powers and checks and balances for a reason. The 3 brances are supposed to be equal, and the executive and judicial branches should not have fiat powers.
:thumbsup:
-
Both scare me. We have separation of powers and checks and balances for a reason. The 3 brances are supposed to be equal, and the executive and judicial branches should not have fiat powers.
They have never and will never be equal.
True they are separate; however, the Founders insured the Congress, the closest representatives to the people and states, is the strongest as it can remove any from the other branches. Executive is next as it controls the bureaucracy and the military.
The Judicial by design is made the weakest. The only power they get is via acquiescence from the other branches.
-
Why/how does a court have that power?
Because the supposedly coequal branches of the Federal government have deferred to the courts for so long that they've forgotten how to read the plain meaning of the Constitution for themselves and, in the case of Congress, forgotten that judicial overreach can be understood to be a "high crime or misdemeanor" in the original meaning of the phrase. One impeachment of a judge for legislating from the bench would probably do the trick, but there is no desire to do that on the left since the Federal bench advances the left's agenda more reliably than elections do, and no will to do it on the right, either out of a misplaced conservative deference to precedent or the foolish desire to curry favor with the media and the Washington social circuit.
-
They have never and will never be equal.
True they are separate; however, the Founders insured the Congress, the closest representatives to the people and states, is the strongest as it can remove any from the other branches. Executive is next as it controls the bureaucracy and the military.
The Judicial by design is made the weakest. The only power they get is via acquiescence from the other branches.
You still miss my main point, an overwrought executive is just as dangerous as an overwrought judicial branch.
-
Because the supposedly coequal branches of the Federal government have deferred to the courts for so long that they've forgotten how to read the plain meaning of the Constitution for themselves and, in the case of Congress, forgotten that judicial overreach can be understood to be a "high crime or misdemeanor" in the original meaning of the phrase. One impeachment of a judge for legislating from the bench would probably do the trick, but there is no desire to do that on the left since the Federal bench advances the left's agenda more reliably than elections do, and no will to do it on the right, either out of a misplaced conservative deference to precedent or the foolish desire to curry favor with the media and the Washington social circuit.
Only fifteen federal judges have ever been impeached, and the Senate has only voted to remove but 8.
In reading about them, it appears most are removed for kickbacks and the like rather than wrong usage of judicial power.
I would certainly like to see a federal judge who brazenly impugns the judiciary power removed from the bench. Until then, our best hope is to not let them onto the bench in the first place to cause havoc.
-
You still miss my main point, an overwrought executive is just as dangerous as an overwrought judicial branch.
I agree, but an out of control Executive is actually worse as he controls the vast bureaucracy and military.
Judicial can be simply ignored as they have limited enforcement power of their decisions and must rely upon compliance.
I will say though, that an Executive only has power for 8 years whereas a bad judge can remain in place for decades.
-
Because the supposedly coequal branches of the Federal government have deferred to the courts for so long that they've forgotten how to read the plain meaning of the Constitution for themselves and, in the case of Congress, forgotten that judicial overreach can be understood to be a "high crime or misdemeanor" in the original meaning of the phrase. One impeachment of a judge for legislating from the bench would probably do the trick, but there is no desire to do that on the left since the Federal bench advances the left's agenda more reliably than elections do, and no will to do it on the right, either out of a misplaced conservative deference to precedent or the foolish desire to curry favor with the media and the Washington social circuit.
That's about it.
-
You still miss my main point, an overwrought executive is just as dangerous as an overwrought judicial branch.
I think some here like the idea of a king.