In theory, it makes sense. There need to be checks and balances on the power government holds, and the ability of the executive branch to issue pardons is a check on overreaches from the judicial branch. They needed to go one step further and provide a check on this power as well, in the event that an unbalanced individual ends up wielding it.
-
Features
Trump Considering Pardoning Sheriff Joe
- Thread starter ZiprHead
- Start date
In theory, it makes sense. There need to be checks and balances on the power government holds, and the ability of the executive branch to issue pardons is a check on overreaches from the judicial branch. They needed to go one step further and provide a check on this power as well, in the event that an unbalanced individual ends up wielding it.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 39,115
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
He's done it. Just announced.
what a fucking asshole
Derec
Contributor
Is this pardon really worse than Obama's commutation of the sentence for anti-American terrorist Oscar Rivera?
Ford
Contributor
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2010
- Messages
- 7,252
- Location
- Freedomland
- Basic Beliefs
- Just don't knock on my door on a Saturday Morning
Trump or Arpaio?
Oh, wait...both!
If it is any consolation, Sheriff Joe's successor is everything Joe wasn't. Thoughtful, professional, and dedicated to serving the public rather than feeding his own ego. Penzone will probably never get famous like Joe, but he's currently reforming the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office and being very transparent about the changes he's making, why, and what they mean for the citizens of the county.
Derec
Contributor
Yeah, but what is he doing about illegal aliens?
Opoponax
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2017
- Messages
- 1,384
- Location
- California Central Coast
- Basic Beliefs
- Apathetic Atheist
Oh fucking please. Rivera did 35 years in prison and there are legitimate arguments for why he was sentenced improperly. This is not comparable.
Conservatives just love to wipe their ass with the Constitution and then wipe it in everyone else's face, all the while claiming they love the Constitution. Fucking assholes.
Jaecp
Member
Just coming here to say this..
Fuck off with those false equivalencies, Derec. Did Arpaio serve a day? Was the sentence for more than a year even? Pardoned a slap on the damn wrist.
Bomb#20
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2004
- Messages
- 8,237
- Location
- California
- Gender
- It's a free country.
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationalism
Hurray for Trump! First good thing he's done in his whole stupid administration. Probably did it mostly for the wrong reasons, but hey, let's take what we can get.
Arpaio was about to be sentenced improperly. Arpaio was convicted improperly. This is obvious to anyone who has examined the matter with any intellectual honesty. There simply aren't any legitimate arguments that this was a proper conviction. The judge who convicted him was wiping her ass with the Constitution. The appellate courts that would have upheld it were just going to wipe it in everyone else's face. Pardoning him was the only effective remedy against despotism. What the bejesus is wrong with you? What the bejesus is wrong with all of you who approve of that conviction? If you're going to accuse your opponents of wiping their asses with the Constitution, first you might want to bloody well read it. Exactly which part of
"The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury"
do you people not understand? Seriously, explain yourselves. Are you barking about the Constitution while simply wallowing in complete ignorance of the Constitutional principles that are at stake here? Are you imbeciles? Or are you simply so corrupt that you equate "Constitutional" with "I get what I want"?
Here's what the ACLU had to say about summary trials for criminal contempt. https://aclu.procon.org/view.additional-resource.php?resourceID=003397
Here's what Justice Black had to say about them. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6886651914045843455&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
Which one of you has both the balls and the intellectual dishonesty to tell us they're wrong?
Derec
Contributor
And he should have spent a lot more. Do you even know who he is and what he did? He participated in bombings in US that caused fatalities, all because he wanted to impose a Cuba-style communist dictatorship in Puerto Rico.
Like what?
I agree. Rivera was a much more indefensible than Arpaio.
Where does it say in the constitution that Presidential pardon power starts after the subject has served x years in prison? Which part of the constitution has Trump violated by pardoning Arpaio exactly?
- - - Updated - - -
They are not equivalent, you are right. The commutation of a sentence of a terrorist is much less defensible than a pardon of Arpaio.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 44,388
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Arpaio was convicted of repeatedly ignoring the law. As a law enforcement person that is a pretty big deal. Pardoning this sets a terrible precedent.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Derec
Contributor
He was railroaded by a pro-illegal judge.
Any worse precedent than pardoning a tax evader because he gave you campaign and library funds, or commuting the sentence of an unrepentant terrorist who murdered US citizens on US soil?
Arpaio was convicted of a misdemeanor "criminal contempt" because he detained illegals, something a pro-illegal judge disliked. Compared to other controversial pardons, it's not nearly as bad, especially since I think Arpaio was right in going after illegals. We coddle those who violate our immigration laws too much in this country.
Derec
Contributor
What are you? Frikki 2.0?
Laws against sex work are as illegitimate as anti-sodomy laws that were ruled unconstitutional in Lawrence. In fact, there is no rational argument that anti-sex work laws are constitutional in light of principles used in Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas decisions.
A country has a legitimate purpose in governing who enters it's territory, be it for a visit or for immigration. Without enforced borders, you do not have a country, any more than you can have a biological cell with no functioning cell membrane.
On the other hand, sex work is the world's oldest profession and most problems associated with it are due to it being made illegal and/or stigmatized. There is no rational reason to do either. 4
Also, terrorist bombings are a serious crime, and rightly so. Letting an unrepentant terrorist was a bad decision by Obama.
Derec
Contributor
Why? terrorism >>> contempt of court
It's not a derail. It's comparing and contrasting this pardon with other controversial presidential pardons and commutations.
If you want a derail, that would be ksen bringing up sex work apropos of nothing.
You can always spot a failed argument by the whataboutism.
It is the same with the religious apologists, pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, cults..... and politics.
What is interesting to me is that it is the same people who fall for all these things.
It is the same with the religious apologists, pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, cults..... and politics.
What is interesting to me is that it is the same people who fall for all these things.
Opoponax
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2017
- Messages
- 1,384
- Location
- California Central Coast
- Basic Beliefs
- Apathetic Atheist
Hurray for Trump! First good thing he's done in his whole stupid administration. Probably did it mostly for the wrong reasons, but hey, let's take what we can get.
Arpaio was about to be sentenced improperly. Arpaio was convicted improperly. This is obvious to anyone who has examined the matter with any intellectual honesty. There simply aren't any legitimate arguments that this was a proper conviction. The judge who convicted him was wiping her ass with the Constitution. The appellate courts that would have upheld it were just going to wipe it in everyone else's face. Pardoning him was the only effective remedy against despotism. What the bejesus is wrong with you? What the bejesus is wrong with all of you who approve of that conviction? If you're going to accuse your opponents of wiping their asses with the Constitution, first you might want to bloody well read it. Exactly which part of
"The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury"
do you people not understand? Seriously, explain yourselves. Are you barking about the Constitution while simply wallowing in complete ignorance of the Constitutional principles that are at stake here? Are you imbeciles? Or are you simply so corrupt that you equate "Constitutional" with "I get what I want"?
Here's what the ACLU had to say about summary trials for criminal contempt. https://aclu.procon.org/view.additional-resource.php?resourceID=003397
Here's what Justice Black had to say about them. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6886651914045843455&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
Which one of you has both the balls and the intellectual dishonesty to tell us they're wrong?
First, YOU explain your links: how they're on point, and how they apply to Arpaio. I'll bet that you can't. Your dogshit legal research on google is just that: dogshit.
Here's how it works in general. You're entitled to a jury for offenses where you may spend a year or more in jail. Understand that? Arpaio wasn't going to spend a year in jail. The judge then has the discretion to provide a jury or not. Get it? In addition, when a judge issues an order/injunction for a defendant to refrain from engaging in certain conduct, the defendant agrees not to engage in conduct lest they be found in contempt. It's what's referred to as a "negative" injunction and such injunctions are considered to be more easily enforceable than affirmative injunctions, BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT CAN BE FOUND IN CONTEMPT FOR VIOLATING THE ORDER.
The old fuck is afraid he'll die in jail and all this hogwash was an attempt to delay his date with the hoosegow.
Now look, I did you the favor you couldn't do the rest of us: I found something online that explains in layman's terms how this shit works. Observe:
Now that you're less ignorant: you're welcome.
Oh, and another thing: usually, a pardon takes place after the matter is settled. Pardons aren't supposed to castrate the judicial process before it's completed review. So hurray for your fucking orange despot.