Trump pardons Sheriff Joe

[Trigger Time]

As Trump said,"I'm President and your not". Trump doesn't consider himself to have any limits whatsoever.

How do you people even have the balls to say **** like that after the last 8 years under king Obama

 

[actaeon277]

No one has said the that the pardon wasn't legal. I view it as a completely legal act. However, when you consider, what it implies the president thinks of constitutional protections, and given it was done under cover of night, seemly with the hope it would get lost in the confusion of the day, some can't help but think the application of the pardon power was dubious. An surely a dog whistle to the more fringe of his base.

I was replying to Fargo's statement

LOL, The inherent power of a court to enforce it's orders through contempt has been enshrined in this country's constitutional and judicial system since day one. It is curious to me that many are just now finding a problem with it, but I haven't heard a word about all the people that go into the can on contempt charges weekly out of the Indiana courts.

I see remands on a weekly basis for contempt. Will no one stand up for all the dead beat dads, fugitives, and FTAer's?

He was mentioning that people are having a problem with "Contempt of Court", when it is "enshrined".
So I mentioned that people are having a problem with "Pardon", when it is "enshrined".

 

[actaeon277]

How do you people even have the balls to say **** like that after the last 8 years under king Obama

"I have a pen..." something something.

 

[Dddrees]

Yep, terrorist and traitors are MUCH worse

Not if you have to throw out the rule of law to achieve your goal. Not if you become one yourself.

 

[actaeon277]

Not if you have to throw out the rule of law to achieve your goal. Not if you become one yourself.

Where was the rule of law thrown out?

 

[ATM]

As Trump said,"I'm President and your not". Trump doesn't consider himself to have any limits whatsoever.

That's just how it is now. We got here incrementally, it certainly wasn't a sudden shift of illegitimate power to POTUS.

 

[2A_Tom]

Joe had a tendency to follow his own rule of law.

It is amazing you know so much about Joe Arpaio and so little about Obama.

It is the news sources you pay attention to.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

I think you guys are really confused about how LE works. Why would one not take such a person into custody if the contact was legal? That's not profiling, and that's certainly not one of the things Arpaio was accused of doing.

That is what he was convicted of contempt for doing... 171 out of the 174 individuals mentioned by the court were taken into custody by ICE under their high priority, hence they had warrants, deportation orders or detainers against them... and the other three very well might have as well, but ICE just refused to take them. The court doesn't address their status.

I'll ask this question, and start from there. Were the initial accusations against Arpaio, the ones that led to the contempt charge, valid?

Prior to the injunction, it definitely appears that Arpaio continued to act as though he had 287g authority to detain "merely unlawfully present" aliens, even though the Obama administration pulled his 287g status in 2009, that's what the suit was about. I mean, heck, the SCOTUS said he was not allowed to enforce immigration law unless federally "deputized" under the 287g program.

BUT his conviction on contempt has nothing to do with that... to be in contempt of the court for violating the injunction, he would have to done what the court ordered him NOT to do:

MCSO and all of it's officers are hereby enjoined from detaining any person based only on knowledge or reasonable belief, without more, that the person is unlawfully present within the Untied States.

If they detained any illegal alien because they were illegal AND ICE had a detainer/warrant/deportation order, that is more than "only" unlawfully present and not a violation of the injunction. Judge Bolton's decision does not contain a single individual detained solely for being illegal, only Arpaio's political statements.

 

[BugI02]

I think you guys are really confused about how LE works. Why would one not take such a person into custody if the contact was legal? That's not profiling, and that's certainly not one of the things Arpaio was accused of doing.

Quite possibly, I don't. Are you saying that if an area of a town or city was known to have a high level of drug dealing or prostitution, that LEO couldn't sweep the area and ask people seen in the area for identification - especially if they fit the profile of a drug dealer, prostitute, user or john?

Perhaps this is where my understanding breaks down. Is this something that only happens on TV dramas, because I would swear I have seen the like on live action shows like Cops. If it is legal in those instances, if an area with a density of criminality problem can be targeted for enhanced enforcement, I don't understand why certain construction sites could not be targeted for enhanced enforcement due to an increased density of the criminal behavior of being in the US illegally.

One would think LEO could fine tune this enhanced policing in constitutionally acceptable ways such as concentrating on businesses known to have employed illegals in the past or on areas known to be frequented by illegals seeking emplyment as day labor

 

[BugI02]

No, I don't believe it would've affected that right at all. Since it carries a maximum penalty of six months or less, I don't believe it would trigger any statutes that I know of. One thing that is kind of glossed over in this thread is that in federal court there is no right to a jury trial on any offense that doesn't carry more than a six month penalty. It doesn't matter whether this was a contempt charge or any other federal misdemeanor arrying less than six+ months, there is no constitutional jury right, at least as far as the US supreme court is concerned.

Now I disagree with them as I think that any criminal charge should have a jury right, but this is not something new at all or special about this case.

Is what he was eventually charged with the only possible charge in the situation that fit the facts, or is it possible that it was chosen specifically because the penalty would preclude a jury trial. How deep did the politics run in this

I find the information on Federal charges confusing. I'm most familiar with Ohio law, and any charge that can result in any jail time carries the right to a Jury trial. That you can go to jail for six months without due process (except the kangaroo variety) seems just another governmental overreach

 

[Fargo]

Quite possibly, I don't. Are you saying that if an area of a town or city was known to have a high level of drug dealing or prostitution, that LEO couldn't sweep the area and ask people seen in the area for identification - especially if they fit the profile of a drug dealer, prostitute, user or john?

Yes, the behavior of stopping people solely because of the way they look and where there they are in town is absolutely not legal.

There must be reasonable suspicion, based upon articulable evidence, that those people are currently engaged in the commission of some offense before they may lawfully be stopped.

In Indiana they must be stopped for an infraction or ordinance violation before identification can be demanded, being stopped for a crime does not trigger the refusal to identify statute.

 

[BugI02]

Funny thing is some people are so righteous about the Constitution and the rule of law until bending it or breaking it serves their purpose.

I don't remember Obama being righteous about the Constitution. Pretty sure he was a 'living document' kind of guy while he was bending and breaking it

 

[2A_Tom]

As a point of reference, I have no respect for the liberal courts that use technicalities to convict consercatives.

Scooter Libby was railroaded on a spurious charge and when they could not get him they tried and convicted him on a charge of lieing to a federal agent. The lie had no effect on what they were investigating. The same thing with Martha Stewart.

Another case is Denny Hastert (who was a sleeze that should have been keel hauled, drawn quartered and hung for his earlier crimed. But that had nothing to do with his conviction. He was investigated for taking large sums of his own money out of the bank. The query had to do with finding people that were funding terrorism. He was paying a blackmailer not to reveal his sordid past. Questioning his dispersment of the cash, he told them he was using it for his own purposes. He was convicted for lieing to a federal officer, because he did not tell them about the blackmail and the circumstances. Duh? 5th Amendment?

 

[BugI02]

Although I can understand the uproar about a number of things there most certainly is an ugly let's do anything approach to getting things right. In fact there's an ugly we're willing to do anything mob type rule taking place here. A really ugly part of our history right here and now. That is if our country can continue after all this is said and done.

Wait, so we're talking about Antifa, Battle of Berkely 1 and 2, shouting down opposing viewpoints, domestic terrorism and mob shaming now?

 

[BugI02]

Yes, the behavior of stopping people solely because of the way they look and where there they are in town is absolutely not legal.

There must be reasonable suspicion, based upon articulable evidence, that those people are currently engaged in the commission of some offense before they may lawfully be stopped.

In Indiana they must be stopped for an infraction or ordinance violation before identification can be demanded, being stopped for a crime does not trigger the refusal to identify statute.

So it would require some observable, articulable action - say a visible transaction conducted through a car window (which could be the case in either type of transaction in my example ), something more than just suspicious behavior or loitering in a high crime area.

Danke

 

[Sylvain]

Oops. Which one takes precedence? They're both Constitutional amendments and both are usually cited in profiling cases/decisions

They are both compatible with eachother.

One says people have rights and the other says citizens have rights (without saying that non-citizens don't).

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That could apply to non-citizens, including illegal aliens.

 

[churchmouse]

They are both compatible with eachother.

One says people have rights and the other says citizens have rights (without saying that non-citizens don't).



That could apply to non-citizens, including illegal aliens.

If you are not a citizen here you are not covered under the bill of rights as I read it. That is the part where these people need to realize this and get on with the process and stop by-passing it and expecting all the benefits.

 

[Fargo]

If you are not a citizen here you are not covered under the bill of rights as I read it. That is the part where these people need to realize this and get on with the process and stop by-passing it and expecting all the benefits.

Citizenship at the time of the ratification of the bill of rights and citizenship post 14th amendment are very different ideas. The SCOTUS has ruled pretty consistently since the 14th amendment that the bill of rights generally applies to non-citizens.

 

[A 7.62 Exodus]

Yeah, this was a political witch hunt. It's too bad that the judge who convicted him was appointed by George W. Bush

 

[KLB]

If the glove fits

What the hell are you talking about?