Trump decides to pardon Arpaio
- Thread starter TheOriginalHappyGoat
- Start date
And why is this particular pardon such an outrage -- particularly given the specific nature of the criticism (ie, that it undermines the courts, the rule of law, etc.)?
Isn't that pretty much the case with virtually every pardon?
As I said elsewhere, I don't give a flying leap about Joe Arpaio. To me, he's much like Judge Roy Moore, Kim Davis, and these sanctuary city mayors -- local/state officials who clearly don't have any respect for federal laws they don't like. I won't carry much brief for him -- even if he did what he did in the service of a just cause (trying to prevent illegal immigration).
But, that said, I don't really get why anybody's treating this any different than any other pardon.
Are you being serious? Most every pardon?
Obama pardoned or commuted like 1,200 people. GWB over 200.
And they almost entirely were based upon recommendations from the Justice Dept...after long reviews, and a specified process.
So no, the very, very vast majority aren't blatantly political. But rather circumstances where those at the top of the Justice Dept felt leniency was necessary, for whatever reason.
What I said, twenty, is that every pardon undermines the courts and the rule of law. It's absolving guilty people of their (legal) guilt. That's true whether it's political or not (and, actually, I would say that a whole lot of them actually are political...even in such cases where it isn't somebody like Cap Weinberger).
I'm not sure what the length of a review has to do with what I'm saying. They could review it for 5 minutes or 5 years, it's still undoing what the legal system did, no?
And, yet, only here is that some kind of howling outrage. Meh -- the people who are engaging in this need to re-read "The Boy Who Cried Wolf." They've clearly forgotten the valuable lesson therein.
Damn, you did it again. How do you keep improving with each post? Wow, am I ever embarrassed
Yes, a lot of people were given extreme mandatory minimum sentences, from archaic drug war times. Most people, from both parties, now agree those policies were a mistake.....and CJ reform had been progressing nicely at state and federal levels. Until the current POTUS and AG seemed determined to return us to the 1970s/80s.
It should be obvious why there is acrimony over this. It was excusing blatant and excessive constitutional violations committed by a govt power, and it was excused because the man-child in office doesn't care about those larger issues.
You are being intentionally cantankerous, for what reason I don't know. This is not comparable to any of the 1200 folks pardoned by Obama, or the 200 by GWB. And you and I both know it. GWB wouldn't even fully pardon Libby, a guy that worked for him.
So he should have been allowed to defy the court with impunity?
How about he pay restitution to the inmates he was so "mean" to in defiance of the court?
Nope. When one accepts a pardon, it is an admission of guilt.
And in fact, few pardons are actually "pardons" before sentencing. They're most often a commutation of sentence -- people get let out sooner than they would have been able to otherwise.
You continue to attack this idiotic straw man. When someone says that this particular pardon shows a disrespect for the rule of law, they are referring to the following:
1. The guilty violated the constitution.
2. The guilty ignored the court's order to cease violating the constitution.
3. Throughout his actions, his trial, his sentencing, and beyond, up to the moment of the pardon, he insisted that he had done nothing wrong.
This is far different than a normal pardon, and you're being disingenuous to claim otherwise.
He was a bully that used a bully position in law enforcement to seek publicity and personal fame on the backs of vulnerable individuals. Special place in hell for him, IMO.
That is also true. But I still can't turn away from crazed's insane equivalence of Arpaio's violation of the law to an illegal immigrant's.
Public officials are typically held to a higher standard by the legal system for a reason.
That reason being that someone working in a field for $4/hour doesn't have the opportunity to wantonly violate the civil rights of thousands upon thousands of residents, as Arpaio did - and gleefully took advantage of.
I'd love to see how you did in a 145 degree tent. Your true colors as a human being are showing.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...agrant-assault-on-latino-civil-rights/538119/
I'm glad I was never arrested in Maricopa County. Arpaio was a hardass, especially to Illegals. He was featured in the media for years for the pink uniform thing. So those who broke the law in his county after his antics were made public kinda got what they were asking for.
Ever driven through Arizona? It's still like how I would imagine the wild west was. There are immigration checkpoints all over. The border patrol officers are no joke--diverse officers, guns drawn, k-9 patrols--not bubbas reading comics. Those guys are risking their lives every day, and they act like it. My wife and I were on vacation when we passed through and there was plenty of tension.
Your are so certain you have Arpaio and the deputies who served under him pegged. I am not so sure. To answer your question, no I wouldn't fare well in 145 degree heat. I would likely fare just as poorly in that same AZ heat working a border checkpoint.
I don't approve as a human being when it happens, however I'm not surprised when lawmen push the boundaries in the line of duty. I am also not surprised by the take on the situation found in an Atlantic opinion piece, which links to other opinion pieces to support it's thesis.
As Shania once said, "that don't impress me much." I understand some folks' need for virtue signalling. Still, you and others should learn to have respect for people with differing opinions than yours.
He violated the constitution. When a judge ordered him to stop violating the constitution, he told the judge to go f*** himself. What about this is difficult for you to understand?
Wow. You are a deranged individual if you can't summon up outrage over what this man did. Remember the rage when pictures came out of the Gitmo prisoners? What this guy did seems much worse to me than that.
I understand. I still don't love everything Arpaio is accused of doing. I am still ok with the pardon. It doesn't mean any more or less than any other presidential pardon. Frankly, they should eliminate the pardon from the executive powers. That would suit me just fine.
Trump: I pardoned Arpaio during hurricane because I thought TV ratings would be higher
http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...during-hurricane-because-i-thought-tv-ratings
http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...during-hurricane-because-i-thought-tv-ratings
Honestly, the voice in my head which plays the character 'Goat-internet" was nearly in tears when reading the post I was replying to. Add that to my admittedly feeling put on the defensive for having the nerve to not be outraged about this issue. Regardless, my calling you drama queen was over the top.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
That's because you're choosing voluntarily to remain ignorant. It's actually quite easy to find a lot of information on a contempt Arpaio and his unconstitutional policies as Sheriff. But you're instead opting to call it fake news because it doesn't fit your already predetermined narrative. This, sir, is the textbook decision of cognitive dissonance.
I said good day.
That's true. But I think it also bears mention that he was picking up the Feds' slack.
The federal government needs to get off the fence on a number of things. Immigration is probably at the top of that list -- particularly in light of the courts' determination that states have very limited latitude in dealing with it. As it stands, they have a host of laws that they selectively enforce. They either need to change the laws or else enforce the ones they have. But leaving laws in place and selectively enforcing them -- particularly while arguing to the courts that it's largely, if not entirely, in their purview -- is just irresponsible.
He was picking up the fed's slack on torture and the misuse of millions and millions of dollars?
Look, once you leave aside all the stuff with violating the United States Constitution and ignoring federal court orders, Arpaio didn't do anything wrong.
Uh, no -- on enforcing immigration laws. That's what his federal charges had to do with.
I'm not excusing any particular thing that he did, mind you. But I am pointing the finger at the federal government for (quite intentionally) being lax about supporting their own immigration laws and then going after state/local officials for trying to pick up the slack.
What I'm saying is that they should either not create any slack or otherwise try to work collaboratively with state/local law agencies to enforce federal immigration law.
His federal charges had nothing to do with him enforcing law. They had to do with him violating the Bill of Rights.
So unless you're saying you think this immigration thing is such a large problem we should suspend the Constitution, I don't know what the hell point you're trying to make.
Shorter crazed:
"I know Arpaio is a jackhole who oversaw the torture of prisoners (sometimes to death), refused to investigate rapes, and misused millions in public funds, but I don't like the Federal Government."
Those defending Trump's pardon of "Sheriff Joe" don't see anything terribly wrong with what Arpaio did. Maybe "some people" are offended, but they aren't.
Evidently violating the Bill of Rights is okay if you're doing it to enforce immigration laws the Feds are slacking off on.
Since crazed is fond of exposing fake double standards, I think this means we can call him a hypocrite every time he complains about any constitutional violation by a government official in the future.
Mmm, no.
I just think the federal government either needs to amend the law to match their enforcement of it or otherwise enforce the law as it's written.
I don't know where you get from that that I don't like the federal government.
Joe no longer considers praise from the KKK an "honor."
The fact he ever did proves what a complete racist piece of crap he and his apologists are.
http://www.pressherald.com/2012/07/24/ariz-sheriff-back-tracks-on-kkk-support/
The fact he ever did proves what a complete racist piece of crap he and his apologists are.
http://www.pressherald.com/2012/07/24/ariz-sheriff-back-tracks-on-kkk-support/
How about those "inmates" that were illegal pay restitution and then be deported. The left just can not understand what illegal means unless of course it pertains to a pub. Without looking just where do you think that so called judge stood politically?
You amazingly (or not) don't even understand the basic facts of the Arpaio case. Incredible that you have such a strong opinion about something you are so ignorant about.
Similar threads
