ADVERTISEMENT

Trump decides to pardon Arpaio

Nope. I made my separation of powers argument. Do you have any argument to suggest POTUS has authority to pardon one who offends the dignity of the court? That's not what the Constitution says.

Professor Tribe kinda agrees with me. But he doesn't state the argument nearly as concisely or clearly as I did. ;) The point is the executive cannot castrate court orders with the pardon power. Take the order on the immigration ban. Trump cannot direct ICE to ignore the order and pardon all who follow the directive.
 
Last edited:
Professor Tribe kinda agrees with me. But he doesn't state the argument nearly as concisely or clealy as I did.
Tribe doesn't make your argument concisely or clearly in the sense that he doesn't make your argument at all. Instead, he makes a completely different argument that Trump would have the power to pardon Arpaio -- which necessarily assumes that criminal contempt is an "Offense[] against the United States" -- but that power is constrained by other constitutional provisions (or by penumbras and emanations from other constitutional provisions) like the Fifth Amendment.
 
Tribe doesn't make your argument concisely or clearly in the sense that he doesn't make your argument at all. Instead, he makes a completely different argument that Trump would have the power to pardon Arpaio -- which necessarily assumes that criminal contempt is an "Offense[] against the United States" -- but that power is constrained by other constitutional provisions (or by penumbras and emanations from other constitutional provisions) like the Fifth Amendment.

With his reference to, and discussion of, the 1962 desegregation orders, Tribe makes a separation of powers argument just as I did. However, as a liberal academic, he takes the issue into a discussions of victims of violations of orders. That isn't necessary. That mucks up the separation of powers point. The executive cannot castrate orders with the pardon power, it doesn't matter who is protected by that order.
 
With his reference to, and discussion of, the 1962 desegregation orders, Tribe makes a separation of powers argument just as I did. However, as a liberal academic, he takes the issue into a discussions of victims of violations of orders. That isn't necessary. That mucks up the separation of powers point. The executive cannot castrate orders with the pardon power, it doesn't matter who is protected by that order.
Tribe doesn't remotely make your argument. Instead, he implicitly rejects your argument by conceding that criminal contempt is an "Offense[] against the United States." Your claim that Tribe supports your argument is both false and bad lawyering. No amount of hand-waving will change that.
 
Tribe doesn't remotely make your argument. Instead, he implicitly rejects your argument by conceding that criminal contempt is an "Offense[] against the United States." Your claim that Tribe supports your argument is both false and bad lawyering. No amount of hand-waving will change that.

Tribe said:

That guarantee requires that courts must be able to issue and enforce injunctions to stop constitutional violations by government officials. Otherwise, compliance with a court order would be optional.
Exactly my argument. Tribe, however supports it by looking at victims and their rights. I support the argument by looking at the executive's authority to castrate the courts. Disobeying a court order is not remotely the same as violating a criminal law.

Bad lawyering? LOL. You focus on finding precedent while I focus on making precedent.
 
Tribe said:

That guarantee requires that courts must be able to issue and enforce injunctions to stop constitutional violations by government officials. Otherwise, compliance with a court order would be optional.
Exactly my argument. Tribe, however supports it by looking at victims and their rights. I support the argument by looking at the executive's authority to castrate the courts. Disobeying a court order is not remotely the same as violating a criminal law.

Bad lawyering? LOL. You focus on finding precedent while I focus on making precedent.
Notwithstanding your dishonest attempts to recast your argument, here is what you actually posted:

A court order is only a court order and does not define a crime. 18 USC 400 something or other probably only provides for civil enforcement otherwise Sheriff Joe would have been convicted of a crime. I'm sure you will research this and let us know for sure.
I don't think a contempt finding, whether civil or criminal, direct or indirect, is an "offense against the United States". It is instead a offense against the dignity of the court.
You never explained how "Offenses against the United States" is the functional equivalent of a deliberate contempt of court.
You never addressed the fundamental difference between a crime and a finding of contempt; and whether that difference makes a difference under POTUS's specific authority to pardon "Offenses against the United States".

Repeatedly and at length, you claimed that criminal contempt is not an "Offense[] against the United States" within the meaning of Article 2, sec. 2, cl. 1. Now you claim that Tribe agrees with you about that, but this is false. Tribe assumes that criminal contempt is an "Offense[] against the United States", but he argues that other provisions of the Constitution limit the president's Article 2 pardon power. This isn't remotely your argument.

You've compounded shitty lawyering with more shitty lawyering. This offends me as a lawyer. I'll let others sort out why it doesn't bother you.
 
Tribe said:

That guarantee requires that courts must be able to issue and enforce injunctions to stop constitutional violations by government officials. Otherwise, compliance with a court order would be optional.
Exactly my argument. Tribe, however supports it by looking at victims and their rights. I support the argument by looking at the executive's authority to castrate the courts. Disobeying a court order is not remotely the same as violating a criminal law.

Bad lawyering? LOL. You focus on finding precedent while I focus on making precedent.
Why does your argument with Rock remind me of two people arguing whether the Bengals or the Browns are the worst football team in the state of Ohio?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joe_Hoopsier
Notwithstanding your dishonest attempts to recast your argument, here is what you actually posted:






Repeatedly and at length, you claimed that criminal contempt is not an "Offense[] against the United States" within the meaning of Article 2, sec. 2, cl. 1. Now you claim that Tribe agrees with you about that, but this is false. Tribe assumes that criminal contempt is an "Offense[] against the United States", but he argues that other provisions of the Constitution limit the president's Article 2 pardon power. This isn't remotely your argument.

You've compounded shitty lawyering with more shitty lawyering. This offends me as a lawyer. I'll let others sort out why it doesn't bother you.

And you cannot engage in a discussion about the law without going the ad hominem route. Typical. All that tells me is you are not only unwilling but unable to discuss these issues at any depth. Like others here, when you have no reasoned response, you go to name calling. And Trube never went where you said he did. Running a speakeasy was a crime.
 
Why does your argument with Rock remind me of two people arguing whether the Bengals or the Browns are the worst football team in the state of Ohio?
Hey Noodle buddy, I renewed my subscription this morning for another year at The Hoosier.com
 
Why does your argument with Rock remind me of two people arguing whether the Bengals or the Browns are the worst football team in the state of Ohio?
Just to clarify, I was not analogizing Rock to the Bengals or the Browns. Ravens, maybe. But not the pitiful orange blobs domiciled in Ohio.
 
And you cannot engage in a discussion about the law without going the ad hominem route. Typical. All that tells me is you are not only unwilling but unable to discuss these issues at any depth. Like others here, when you have no reasoned response, you go to name calling. And Trube never went where you said he did. Running a speakeasy was a crime.
This is a pet peeve of mine. What Rock said was not an ad hominem. An ad hominem is when you dismiss an argument on account of who is making it. Rock is describing in blunt terms (and quite obviously correctly; it boggles the mind why you continue to push this ridiculous argument) why your position is untenable.

If we're arguing about baseball, and someone dismisses your opinion because you're a "shitty lawyer," that would be a personal attack and an ad hominem both.

If you're putting forward a shitty legal argument, and someone points out that your lawyering is, in fact, "shitty lawyering," that's not a personal attack or an ad hominem. It's a sharp criticism of your actual argument.
 
This is a pet peeve of mine. What Rock said was not an ad hominem. An ad hominem is when you dismiss an argument on account of who is making it. Rock is describing in blunt terms (and quite obviously correctly; it boggles the mind why you continue to push this ridiculous argument) why your position is untenable.

If we're arguing about baseball, and someone dismisses your opinion because you're a "shitty lawyer," that would be a personal attack and an ad hominem both.

If you're putting forward a shitty legal argument, and someone points out that your lawyering is, in fact, "shitty lawyering," that's not a personal attack or an ad hominem. It's a sharp criticism of your actual argument.
So is my comparison of CO's argument to the Browns or the Bengals an ad homisynonem or is it a metaphorical ad hominem?
 
This is a pet peeve of mine. What Rock said was not an ad hominem. An ad hominem is when you dismiss an argument on account of who is making it. Rock is describing in blunt terms (and quite obviously correctly; it boggles the mind why you continue to push this ridiculous argument) why your position is untenable.

If we're arguing about baseball, and someone dismisses your opinion because you're a "shitty lawyer," that would be a personal attack and an ad hominem both.

If you're putting forward a shitty legal argument, and someone points out that your lawyering is, in fact, "shitty lawyering," that's not a personal attack or an ad hominem. It's a sharp criticism of your actual argument.

Neither you or Fish have made one dent in the separation of powers point. Tribe discussed it and found a different work around.

Dismissing a point because of "shitty lawyering" is an ad hominem. Trying to win an argument by saying your adversary is engaging in bad lawyering does not touch the merits. Saying there is no precedent for my argument is irrelevant. Precedent changes and is created every day.
 
Neither you or Fish have made one dent in the separation of powers point. Tribe discussed it and found a different work around.

Dismissing a point because of "shitty lawyering" is an ad hominem. Trying to win an argument by saying your adversary is engaging in bad lawyering does not touch the merits. Saying there is no precedent for my argument is irrelevant. Precedent changes and is created every day.
Actually, several dents have been made in your argument, many pages ago. You simply chose to ignore them. For example, I pointed out that Arpaio was convicted of violating a statute, rather than under the inherent authority of the court. Someone else (Noodle?) pointed out that the inclusion of a single exception in the Constitution implies no other exceptions. Rock pointed out that an "offense against the United States" encompasses offenses against any of the three branches. Your response to these dents was to simply repeat your assertion without any legal backing.

You also badly misrepresent the article you shared. Tribe is making no separation of powers point. He is instead arguing that such a pardon constructively violates the Constitution by infringing on the Constitutional rights of other individuals.

Ad hominem means what it means, whatever fanciful definition you'd like to assign it.
 
Actually, several dents have been made in your argument, many pages ago. You simply chose to ignore them. For example, I pointed out that Arpaio was convicted of violating a statute, rather than under the inherent authority of the court. Someone else (Noodle?) pointed out that the inclusion of a single exception in the Constitution implies no other exceptions. Rock pointed out that an "offense against the United States" encompasses offenses against any of the three branches. Your response to these dents was to simply repeat your assertion without any legal backing.

You also badly misrepresent the article you shared. Tribe is making no separation of powers point. He is instead arguing that such a pardon constructively violates the Constitution by infringing on the Constitutional rights of other individuals.

Ad hominem means what it means, whatever fanciful definition you'd like to assign it.

I didn't ignore anything. I responded and disagreed.

First, Trump pardoned Arpaio from the burdens of the contempt. The order he violated intended to enforce the statute. There is no dispute about this.

Second, the exception to the pardon authority is not relevant. For the reasons Tribe and I stated, pardon authority should not be seen as applying to court orders. That is an intrusion on the authority of the court. Unlike a pardon from a statutory crime, the criminal law is valid and enforceable after a pardon. When pardoning from violation of a court order, the court order becomes a nullity, as Tribe noted. That's different and violates separation of powers.

The fish never supported his claim that violation of a court order is an offense against the United States.

I won't say that the arguments you and others are making are shitty lawyering. But I will say that they are ordinary and mediocre lawyering. The law will never evolve with your version of lawyering.
 
I didn't ignore anything. I responded and disagreed.

First, Trump pardoned Arpaio from the burdens of the contempt. The order he violated intended to enforce the statute. There is no dispute about this.

Second, the exception to the pardon authority is not relevant. For the reasons Tribe and I stated, pardon authority should not be seen as applying to court orders. That is an intrusion on the authority of the court. Unlike a pardon from a statutory crime, the criminal law is valid and enforceable after a pardon. When pardoning from violation of a court order, the court order becomes a nullity, as Tribe noted. That's different and violates separation of powers.

The fish never supported his claim that violation of a court order is an offense against the United States.

I won't say that the arguments you and others are making are shitty lawyering. But I will say that they are ordinary and mediocre lawyering. The law will never evolve with your version of lawyering.
This entire response is based on an error that's already been pointed out to you. Trump did not pardon Arpaio from the burdens of a court order. He pardon him of his conviction of statutory criminal contempt. The court order was only relevant insofar as it was evidence that led to his conviction.
 
This entire response is based on an error that's already been pointed out to you. Trump did not pardon Arpaio from the burdens of a court order. He pardon him of his conviction of statutory criminal contempt. The court order was only relevant insofar as it was evidence that led to his conviction.

No. Arpaio was found guilty of contempt. There is no "statutory" contempt. That is an oxymoron. Contempt is always under rules of court. The underlying case was a civil case and Arpaio was subject to a civil injunction. While in some cases congress has attempted to define a crime for failing to comply with a court order, that is not involved here as I noted weeks ago.

See
 
This entire response is based on an error that's already been pointed out to you. Trump did not pardon Arpaio from the burdens of a court order. He pardon him of his conviction of statutory criminal contempt. The court order was only relevant insofar as it was evidence that led to his conviction.
As I quoted him above, CO. repeatedly claimed that a conviction of criminal contempt did not constitute an "Offense[] against the United States" within the meaning of Article II. This claim is baseless for all of the reasons that were explained to him back then.

Now CO. claims claims to have found Larry Tribe making the very same argument he made. But not only does Tribe not make CO.'s argument, he instead makes an argument that necessarily assumes that criminal contempt is an "Offense[] against the United States" -- Trump would have the power to pardon a criminal contempt under Article II, but at least in Arpaio's case that would violate the Fifth Amendment.

Again, for emphasis, CO. claimed that Trump lacks authority to pardon Trump under Article II, while Tribe concedes that Trump would have that Article II power, but that Article II power is limited by the Fifth Amendment in Arpaio's case. CO.'s claim that Tribe is making his argument is flatly false. In fact, Tribe's argument contradicts CO.'s claim. They both reach the same conclusion, but for mutually exclusive reasons. Getting this wrong requires shitty lawyering.

Now CO. claims that he is engaged in some higher form of lawyering where obfuscation, intellectual dishonesty, and logical fallacies reign supreme. It disturbs me that non-lawyers might mistakenly imagine that this sort of nonsense is what lawyers do, when in fact it is merely what CO. Hoosier does.
 
No. Arpaio was found guilty of contempt. There is no "statutory" contempt. That is an oxymoron. Contempt is always under rules of court. The underlying case was a civil case and Arpaio was subject to a civil injunction. While in some cases congress has attempted to define a crime for failing to comply with a court order, that is not involved here as I noted weeks ago.

See
I see that you're still arguing that a conviction of criminal contempt is not an "Offense[] against the United States" within the meaning of Article II. Once again, this is not Tribe's argument. Tribe's argument necessarily concedes that criminal contempt is an "Offense[] against the United States," but that Article II power is circumscribed by the Fifth Amendment.

I haven't been able to find any reference to the Fifth Amendment in your prior posts. Perhaps you could point it out to me.
 
No. Arpaio was found guilty of contempt. There is no "statutory" contempt. That is an oxymoron. Contempt is always under rules of court. The underlying case was a civil case and Arpaio was subject to a civil injunction. While in some cases congress has attempted to define a crime for failing to comply with a court order, that is not involved here as I noted weeks ago.

See
18 USC 401(3) is the statute Arpaio was officially charged with violating. Whatever you noted weeks ago was incorrect.
 
As I quoted him above, CO. repeatedly claimed that a conviction of criminal contempt did not constitute an "Offense[] against the United States" within the meaning of Article II. This claim is baseless for all of the reasons that were explained to him back then.

Now CO. claims claims to have found Larry Tribe making the very same argument he made. But not only does Tribe not make CO.'s argument, he instead makes an argument that necessarily assumes that criminal contempt is an "Offense[] against the United States" -- Trump would have the power to pardon a criminal contempt under Article II, but at least in Arpaio's case that would violate the Fifth Amendment.

Again, for emphasis, CO. claimed that Trump lacks authority to pardon Trump under Article II, while Tribe concedes that Trump would have that Article II power, but that Article II power is limited by the Fifth Amendment in Arpaio's case. CO.'s claim that Tribe is making his argument is flatly false. In fact, Tribe's argument contradicts CO.'s claim. They both reach the same conclusion, but for mutually exclusive reasons. Getting this wrong requires shitty lawyering.

Now CO. claims that he is engaged in some higher form of lawyering where obfuscation, intellectual dishonesty, and logical fallacies reign supreme. It disturbs me that non-lawyers might mistakenly imagine that this sort of nonsense is what lawyers do, when in fact it is merely what CO. Hoosier does.
Yeah, I'm not even sure I buy Tribe's argument, but it's pretty obvious it's essentially the opposite of what CO.H is arguing.
 
Just to clarify, I was not analogizing Rock to the Bengals or the Browns. Ravens, maybe. But not the pitiful orange blobs domiciled in Ohio.
Anyone attending those two games should be either committed or arrested. Something is seriously wrong with them.

I was forced into the preseason game at Lucas Oil. Yes, it was the 4th preseason game, but I could not believe how bad Cincy looked. I thought before they could be an 8-8 team, after I thought 5-11. Now I am 3-13. Marvin Lewis has to have pictures of Mike Brown.
 
I didn't ignore anything. I responded and disagreed.

First, Trump pardoned Arpaio from the burdens of the contempt. The order he violated intended to enforce the statute. There is no dispute about this.

Second, the exception to the pardon authority is not relevant. For the reasons Tribe and I stated, pardon authority should not be seen as applying to court orders. That is an intrusion on the authority of the court. Unlike a pardon from a statutory crime, the criminal law is valid and enforceable after a pardon. When pardoning from violation of a court order, the court order becomes a nullity, as Tribe noted. That's different and violates separation of powers.

The fish never supported his claim that violation of a court order is an offense against the United States.

I won't say that the arguments you and others are making are shitty lawyering. But I will say that they are ordinary and mediocre lawyering. The law will never evolve with your version of lawyering.

The court order is not a nullity. It's still out there, and it's still enforceable (albeit as a rather toothless order given that Arpaio is out of office). The only effect of the pardon is that it negates any punishment of Arpaio for his previous violations of that order. The criminal contempt conviction still stands.

Also, were Arpaio still in office, and continued to violate the order, he could be charged with criminal contempt once again. Just because you are pardoned for murder doesn't mean you get a free pass on any other murders you commit subsequently.

My prediction is that the Arizona judge will not vacate the conviction as Arpaio's lawyers have apparently requested. No, the conviction will stand, and she will not try to create an absolute mess by sentencing Arpaio despite the pardon (as some have suggested that she might try to do). So Arpaio won't go to jail, but he will forever be a convicted criminal (or whatever the appropriate term is for someone convicted of criminal contempt).
 
The court order is not a nullity. It's still out there, and it's still enforceable (albeit as a rather toothless order given that Arpaio is out of office). The only effect of the pardon is that it negates any punishment of Arpaio for his previous violations of that order. The criminal contempt conviction still stands.

Also, were Arpaio still in office, and continued to violate the order, he could be charged with criminal contempt once again. Just because you are pardoned for murder doesn't mean you get a free pass on any other murders you commit subsequently.

My prediction is that the Arizona judge will not vacate the conviction as Arpaio's lawyers have apparently requested. No, the conviction will stand, and she will not try to create an absolute mess by sentencing Arpaio despite the pardon (as some have suggested that she might try to do). So Arpaio won't go to jail, but he will forever be a convicted criminal (or whatever the appropriate term is for someone convicted of criminal contempt).

One can be pardoned for charges not yet brought. I think a pardon cleanses the record if the conviction. Maybe you are thinking of clemency?

I think you are right about all the practicalities. This is mostly a theoretical discussion about separation of powers.
 
18 USC 401(3) is the statute Arpaio was officially charged with violating. Whatever you noted weeks ago was incorrect.

Huh? Did you even read the Order To Show Cause why Arpaio should not be held in contempt? The statute you keep mentioning does not define a crime. It grants the federal court certain authority. Federal courts only have the authority as defined be statute.

I take back what I said about ordinary and mediocre lawyering. You haven't reached that standard.
 
One can be pardoned for charges not yet brought. I think a pardon cleanses the record if the conviction. Maybe you are thinking of clemency?

I think you are right about all the practicalities. This is mostly a theoretical discussion about separation of powers.
Mostly right?!? So now it's a "theoretical discussion"? LOL whatever.

A pardon does not expunge a conviction. No idea what you are referring to re "cleansing" a conviction. Oh, and a pardon is a type of clemency.

And yes, a pardon can be granted preemptively. But that just means that someone will not face trial due to futility. But in that instance the recipient may be forced to accept the pardon and, effectively, admit guilt. Of course that's irrelevant to Arpaio, as he had already been convicted--a conviction that Trump is powerless to overturn.

Let me know when you have any other perplexing legal questions I can help you with.
 
Nice cop out. But the sh*# you are a full of is so real that I know you can taste it in the back of your throat.

WTF man? I have always been courteous and respectful to you. I've had discussions like this for 50 years with fellow students, professors, colleagues, and partners. That's always been fun. It's what lawyers do. Nobody ever responded with "shitty lawyering" or "full of shit" like you, the fish and goat. Can't you handle a disagreement? Did somebody piss in your booze?
 
WTF man? I have always been courteous and respectful to you. I've had discussions like this for 50 years with fellow students, professors, colleagues, and partners. That's always been fun. It's what lawyers do. Nobody ever responded with "shitty lawyering" or "full of shit" like you, the fish and goat. Can't you handle a disagreement? Did somebody piss in your booze?
I did not refer to shitty lawyering. You're the one who referred to me as exhibiting "ordinary and mediocre lawyering." In my world, that's the same thing. And then you try to defend yourself with demonstrably incorrect statements, as well as deflectionary arguments such as nonsense about "cleansing the record." And then you have the gall to say it's only a theoretical discussion when you have no answer. Well guess what? Under those circumstances, especially when someone challenges my abilities, I'm going to state the obvious--you're a poser.
 
Last edited:
I did not refer to shitty lawyering. You're the one who referred to me as exhibiting "ordinary and mediocre lawyering." In my world, that's the same thing. And then you try to defend yourself with demonstrably incorrect statements, as well as deflectionary arguments such as nonsense about "cleansing the record." And then you have the gall to say it's only a theoretical discussion when you have no answer. Well guess what? Under those circumstances, especially when someone challenges my abilities, I'm going to state the obvious--you're a poser.

Good frickin' grief. Who gives a damn whether a pardon cleanses, some, none, or all of a criminal record. That has nothing to do with this. Oh, I said quite early in the discussion nobody will challenge the pardon. I simply brought up the separation of powers issue because I think it's interesting.

And the arguments you and fish make here are mediocre, goat is less than that. All you two can do is talk about there is no precedent for my point while NEVER addressing the important distinctions between contempt findings and a criminal conviction. News flash, certain issues are unprecedented.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT