Trump decides to pardon Arpaio
- Thread starter TheOriginalHappyGoat
- Start date
Back to the subject, this article makes the case that the Arpaio pardon is exactly the kind of abuse of power ("High Crimes") the founders were concerned about and that the impeachment process was specifically aimed at:
https://impeachableoffenses.net/201...aio-the-first-verifiable-impeachable-offense/
The founders included in the constitution a congressional power to impeach presidents primarily to respond to misuse by the president of express or implied powers given him elsewhere in the document.
It is true that presidents and other officials can be impeached for conduct not involving the exercise of a specific official power if it intrudes somehow into the sphere of public duty. And impeachment can be proper in the case of a heinous private criminal offense which so far undercuts the moral authority and personal credibility of the offender that he can no longer effectively perform his office.
But, to the founders, the main point of impeachment was that there must be a remedy when a president perverts the powers of his office, either for personal or political self-aggrandizement or, regardless of motive, when the president’s acts threaten the proper distribution of authority among the coordinate branches or otherwise offend either law or fundamental governing norms.
https://impeachableoffenses.net/201...aio-the-first-verifiable-impeachable-offense/
The founders included in the constitution a congressional power to impeach presidents primarily to respond to misuse by the president of express or implied powers given him elsewhere in the document.
It is true that presidents and other officials can be impeached for conduct not involving the exercise of a specific official power if it intrudes somehow into the sphere of public duty. And impeachment can be proper in the case of a heinous private criminal offense which so far undercuts the moral authority and personal credibility of the offender that he can no longer effectively perform his office.
But, to the founders, the main point of impeachment was that there must be a remedy when a president perverts the powers of his office, either for personal or political self-aggrandizement or, regardless of motive, when the president’s acts threaten the proper distribution of authority among the coordinate branches or otherwise offend either law or fundamental governing norms.
Hillz thinks that Joe A was a noble person. That tells me everything I need to know about Hillz.
Dont be so sure:
Animal Control Officer: Job Description and Career Requirements
http://study.com/articles/Animal_Co...ng_a_Career_as_an_Animal_Control_Officer.html
Joe A. is the epitome of the "old generation", one that isn't "politically correct" and wants things to be the way they were in the 50's and 60's. In other words, they want to turn back the clock to the pre-civil rights era. When white people were even more entitled than they are now, and the world was completely shaped to conform to them.
He is a complete POS, who is racist, doesn't respect the rule of law and is also a hypocrite. He's a lot like Trump, in other words. It's amazing that the power of he pardon is being used in this way, at this time. And, it's a blatant, naked payback for someone that supported Trump early.
And it sends a horrible message to everyone that was hopeful that we've made progress racially as a county over the years. It's a giant middle finger to judges, our judicial system and minorities.
And I never wish ill will on anyone. However, when Joe A's generation goes, we'll be in a better place as a society. In most ways, anyway. Especially when it comes to racial harmony and understanding that "make america great again" is just a thinly veiled way of saying "make america white again".
I seriously can't believe we're backsliding this much right now. History ever runs in a straight line, but this will take a while to recover from as a nation.
You win.
Dumbest post ever on the Cooler.
The bar was very low, but you did it.
The bar has been lowered.
I think it's ironic that Senators who want to rewrite the immigration laws to legalize foreign nationals who blatantly and knowingly violated US law are lecturing anybody about devotion to the rule of law.
I don't really give a crap about Joe Arpaio. I never have much sympathy for any public official who defies courts or otherwise flouts the law -- and he did.
But it is rich to see those who want to change our laws so as to effectively pardon millions of foreigners have violated our laws get on high horses about the rule of law.
I don't really give a crap about Joe Arpaio. I never have much sympathy for any public official who defies courts or otherwise flouts the law -- and he did.
But it is rich to see those who want to change our laws so as to effectively pardon millions of foreigners have violated our laws get on high horses about the rule of law.
While I understand the philosophical point you are trying to make, you're ignoring the key difference, which is one of policy. There are millions of illegal immigrants here. Many of them have minor children who are U.S. citizens. They are an important cog in the American economic machine.
Various levels of amnesty aren't about pardoning individuals who broke they law; they are about trying to find a policy implementation of immigration reform that causes the least disruption to the American economy and society. Comparing that to the pardoning of a single individual is specious at best.
In your response, you're also very much ignoring Rock's broader point in order to pick nits in a very minor portion of his post. I think Rock is more interested in your response to "The GOP might be broken" than your response to his use of Arpaio as a bellweather for examining his proposition in the future.
You can dress it up in all the equivocation you want, you're still left with policymakers (and others, of course) wanting to confer legal status upon people who willfully violated the law. You can't refute that -- because it's irrefutable.
Anybody who wants to do that should probably refrain from lecturing others about not being devoted to the rule of law.
I don't necessarily mind criticism about undermining the rule of law. But anybody who makes it needs to make sure they're not living in a glass house.
I didn't refute it. But it's irrelevant, and all your talk about glass houses and hypocrisy is silly, because it ignores the very clear differences between the situations.
(There are other differences, too; I was just pointing out the most obvious.)
You do understand that there is a difference between changing the laws, which happens all the time, and violating them, right?
One technique is called "working within the system", the other is I.legal.
You tell 'em. It's not like Joe is a rapist or murderer or stole a job from a red blooded Mercun.
Oh sure.
But, in this particular case, we're not just talking about changing laws....but effectively pardoning most people who have violated them as they presently stand.
Anybody who wishes to do that should refrain from lecturing anybody else about the rule of law.
Now, if they want to change laws going forward -- without retroactively granting de facto pardons to those who have violated them -- then you'd have a valid contrast. But they aren't -- so you don't.
I'm ignoring them because they have nothing to do with what I'm saying. They're diversions.
You can't on one hand advocate that people who have willfully broken the laws be forgiven for having done so and thus issued legal status and then lecture somebody else about not valuing the rule of law.
Well....you can, I guess. But you're an obvious hypocrite.
I'm not. I'm pointing out the flaw in your argument, but I haven't said anything about Trump not valuing the rule of law. So back off.
And talk about diversions. This whole sub-thread is a diversion. Time to stop. Get back to Rock's point, or don't post in this thread. Take your thoughts to the Arpaio thread.
I thought it was a bad idea that would only exacerbate the problem it was ostensibly supposed to address -- which is precisely what it did.
Heck, even he eventually expressed regret about signing that legislation.
What exactly are you suggesting...that if Reagan did something, I'm supposed to automatically be supportive?
But this is really beside the point I'm making -- which is about hypocrites sitting on high horses about the rule of law.
I wouldn't say noble, but I dont have my panties in a wad because his proximity to the border means he arrested a lot of Mexicans. I have no problem with our law enforcement agencies enforcing every law on the books, including unpopular ones. He spent fifty years trying to solve problems you only read about in the Sunday Times over brunch, (when your daddy is thru with the paper, of course.)
He became a target of political opposition and was ousted. I would be ok with him not spending time in jail.
The fact all the Righty fruit cakes agreed with you tells me I was exactly right.....on all of it.
Anybody who doesn't support strict ticketing of people going 56 in a 55 can't speak about the value of the rule of law. It's just not right because there's only one way to ever handle the breaking of laws.
@HillzHoozier
Not only did he torture people, but he didn't solve any problems either. He misspent millions of dollars on stupid crap. He's a horrible person. He blatantly broke the law and thought the law did not apply to him. The fact that you are defending him says a lot about you and it also shows that you are willfully ignorant and refuse to read or educate yourself in any capacity. This isn't about political correctness, it's about him thinking he's above the law and just being a crappy person. Seriously, this was posted earlier in the thread, and you ignored it. Why?
"On July 2, 2011, when the temperature in Phoenix hit 118 °F (48 °C), Arpaio measured the temperature inside Tent City tents at 145 °F (63 °C). Some inmates complained that fans near their beds were not working, and that their shoes were melting from the heat.
In 1995, Arpaio reinstituted chain gangs. In 1996, he expanded the chain gang concept by instituting female volunteer chain gangs. Female inmates worked seven hours a day (7 a.m. to 2 p.m.), six days a week. He also instituted the world's first all-juvenile volunteer chain gang; volunteers earned high school credit toward a diploma.
Arpaio's jail detention practices included serving inmates edibles recovered from food rescue and limiting meals to twice daily.
During a three-year period ending in 2007, more than 400 sex crimes reported to Arpaio's office were inadequately investigated or not investigated at all. While providing police services for El Mirage, Arizona, the MCSO under Arpaio failed to follow through on at least 32 reported child molestations, even though the suspects were known in all but six cases. Many of the victims were children of illegal immigrants.
An analysis by the Maricopa County Office of Management and Budget, completed in April 2011, found that Arpaio had misspent almost $100 million over the previous 5 years. Arpaio used the detention fund to pay for investigations of political rivals, as well as activities involving his human-smuggling unit.
The analysis also showed a number of inappropriate spending items including a trip to Alaska where deputies stayed at a fishing resort, and trips to Disneyland.
Separate investigations by The Arizona Republic uncovered widespread abuse of public funds and county policies by Arpaio's office, including high-ranking employees routinely charging expensive meals and stays at luxury hotels on their county credit cards. The Republic also found that a restricted jail-enhancement fund was improperly used to pay for out-of-state training, a staff party at a local amusement park, and a $456,000 bus which Arpaio purchased in violation of county procurement rules."
You got likes from Hillz, IUBBALLAWOL, and Lucy. That tell you anything?
He is this generation's Bull Connor. Of course some still look back fondly at Bull...
HillzHoozier's thought bubble: But... but... but... they are illegals.. maybe they were.... or maybe they just happened to look different to me...
You think that's the only thing he did? Perhaps you should do a bit of research on this filth scum of a man before you embarrass yourself more.
If they had a case for the misappropriated funds, they should have made it. The judge ruled he was being mean to criminals and he needed to cease using his mean methods. He continued in defiance of that judge, was convicted of contempt of that court order, and subsequently voted out of office. He's now 85 with no authority over anyone. I fail to see how his spending six months in jail helps anyone.
What angers the libmob in this thread is the idea that the hated Trump made a political move that might please a few folks.
You people are crazy.
This is the only place in the my life where I have been called a racist. One hundred percent of the people who call me racist have no idea who I am or how I treat people I have contact with out in the real world.
I have never known a group so eaten up with their need to spot prejudice and distance themselves from it, while negatively prejudging anything and everyone who is different from themselves.
The "Not racists versus obvious racists" forum. Gee, I think I'll pass..
The Constitution says Presidents can issue pardons.
A President has issued a pardon.
Not much else to say.
A President has issued a pardon.
Not much else to say.
Having the right to do something is different than being right in doing that something. The argument is on the latter, not the former.
What a field-day for the heat
A thousand people in the street
Singin' songs and carrying signs
Mostly say, hooray for our side
Just think, we only just completed 8 years of crap postings about Obama. We haven't even begun to scratch the surface back.
I didn't think you were this capable. I'm just getting proven wrong time and again.
Similar threads
