White House has paperwork ready for Joe Arpaio pardon

a reply to: Lab4Us

Except this whole thing started when the DOJ under Bush investigated the MCSO and found they were exceeding their authority.

Also, on two separate occasions the courts found that prisoners were not being treated humanely. In both cases they declared that the MCSO were violating the constitutional rights of their prisoners.

originally posted by: Aazadan
www.cnn.com...

Looks like it's going to happen. Trump is going to pardon someone for ignoring the federal court system. Arpaio is guilty of contempt of court for running an illegal program, and continuing to run it after the courts stopped it. This is unique among pardons because it's not a pardon for committing a crime. It's a pardon for ignoring the authority of both federal and state governments.

I was hoping he wouldn't do this. In my mind, authority figures deserve even more scrutiny than anyone else, and I have zero tolerance for mistakes from people in authority (the ability to not screw up, is presumably why they're in charge afterall).

Instead, with this Trump is saying do as I do, not as I say. It totally undermines the court system.

Here is what one rep from AZ stated..

Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) wrote that Arpaio had “been the target of politically-motivated investigations” during the Obama administration while carrying out “his quest to uphold immigration laws.”

Shariff Joe is accused of profiling Latinos in a place that is like 90% Latinos...lol

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Krazysh0t
You fell for their tricks.

Oh the irony.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm waiting for one of Trumps supporters to actually speak out against this. Arpaio is guilty of breaking the constitution, and he was given a pass on that. He was told to knock it off though. Instead, he got emboldened by that, continued, and even ratcheted it up. For that, we have a sheriff who said the constitution doesn't matter, and he rightfully went to jail for it.

I'm amazed we have a President pardoning that. It's essentially saying that the Constitution has no legal basis to exist. If one can ignore the will of the courts, then does that mean we can all ignore the will of the courts, or is it ok only when you're a high profile Trump supporter?

you rang??? look up...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Aazadan

Trump has been undermining the court system since he was a candidate. He clearly has no respect for it.

The court system IS NOT the legal nor the justice system. We're not living in Judge Dread times, despite the fact that many federal judges seem to believe it is their job to legislate from the bench and that anything they say is akin to the word of God. The court system needs to be slapped down until it remembers it's place and feels enough pain and humiliation to not move from that place for a very long time.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Remembers its place? You mean as a check on the other branches of government like it has been doing these last 8 months?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

What irony? I used open records law, Factcheck, and the HDOH regulations to prove it's fraudulent. You fell for tricksters.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Aazadan

Trump has been undermining the court system since he was a candidate. He clearly has no respect for it.

The court system IS NOT the legal nor the justice system. We're not living in Judge Dread times, despite the fact that many federal judges seem to believe it is their job to legislate from the bench and that anything they say is akin to the word of God. The court system needs to be slapped down until it remembers it's place and feels enough pain and humiliation to not move from that place for a very long time.

That is a very valid point as well. Even though Sheriff Joe was only guilty of contempt it is still a crime and therefore if found guilty like he was he should pay the price. And the sentencing should fall within the lines of other sentences for the same crime..

Which is usually a fine a not more than 30 in jail..

originally posted by: Aazadan
www.cnn.com...

Looks like it's going to happen. Trump is going to pardon someone for ignoring the federal court system.

Isn't that what the Sanctuary City folks are doing?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Remembers its place? You mean as a check on the other branches of government like it has been doing these last 8 months?

INTERPRETING the law, period. Not legislating, not making laws, not activisim from the bench, interpreting the law. Self righteous and self serving obstruction and attention whoring isn't checks and balances, though I am in no way surprised to see you advertise it as such.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

No. You used the internet and confirmation bias to "prove" a bunch of hooey as is typical of internet detectives who think they know more than they do.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Which is what they've been doing. Just because you don't like their interpretations doesn't mean they are doing that malarkey you just said.

a reply to: GuidedKill

Contempt should not be a crime as it is the definition of conflict of interest. What other profession in this country can directly punish someone, without any transparency or oversight, for "insulting" or "disrespecting" them? The bench has become far too full of itself and, with very few exceptions, it is worthy on the federal circuit level of everyone's contempt.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

The court system IS NOT the legal nor the justice system. We're not living in Judge Dread times, despite the fact that many federal judges seem to believe it is their job to legislate from the bench and that anything they say is akin to the word of God. The court system needs to be slapped down until it remembers it's place and feels enough pain and humiliation to not move from that place for a very long time.

We been seeing a lot of this from the court system...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

No, the fact that they are doing the "malarkey" is what means they are doing the "malarkey" I just said.

They are a collective joke who, unfortunately, don't even have the common decency to have a punchline.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well, the HDOH does publish the agency's regulations online. But I would hardly call writing open records requests "using the internet."

Both are appropriate ways to research the topic. Better than your method of "trusting the news."

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No, the fact that they are doing the "malarkey" is what means they are doing the "malarkey" I just said.

Huh? This sentence doesn't make sense no matter how many times I read it.

They are a collective joke who, unfortunately, don't even have the common decency to have a punchline.

The only collective joke are Trump sycophants letting Trump dictate our checks and balances instead of our Constitution.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well, the HDOH does publish the agency's regulations online. But I would hardly call writing open records requests "using the internet."

Both are appropriate ways to research the topic. Better than your method of "trusting the news."

Which has nothing to with the specious conclusions you reached about why you think the documents are fake. Plus I don't need to "trust the news" here. Obama released his BC all on his own. How about I trust the source instead?

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: GuidedKill

Contempt should not be a crime as it is the definition of conflict of interest. What other profession in this country can directly punish someone, without any transparency or oversight, for "insulting" or "disrespecting" them? The bench has become far too full of itself and, with very few exceptions, it is worthy on the federal circuit level of everyone's contempt.

Another very valid point but out of context with the OP. Simple fact is although contempt shouldn't be a crime it in fact IS a crime. One that the good sheriff committed when he was in contempt...Therefore do the crime do the time. He was found guilty therefore should not be above the law he so willfully enforced on others.

your thoughts on if it should be a crime or not is a great idea for another thread.....

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
Trump: The Law & Order President (unless a friend breaks the law)

GOP: The Party of Personal Responsibility (but not actually)

I'm sure we will see more of it in the years to come.