White House has paperwork ready for Joe Arpaio pardon

most presidents pardon in exchange for money or some form of support. trump will pardon because of the will of pro american voters.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

So you don't believe in co-equal branches of government then. Noted.

Gross but expected. He coddles racists.

a reply to: Kali74

hahahaha.......raaaciiisssttt!

That word is so overused and abused.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: burdman30ott6

So you don't believe in co-equal branches of government then. Noted.

Co-equal doesn't mean same responsibilities. The Judicial branch is responsible purely for interpretation of the law, not legislation from the bench. Plus, isn't the existence of contempt charges evidence of some form of branch inequality? We can openly disagree with and criticize the president and representatives, but try it against a judge in a court and magically you have no First Amendment rights.

If what we're seeing is what you'd call "co-equal" then no, I don't believe in it in any way.

a reply to: Kali74

I've never seen him coddle anyone from BLM, ANTIFAP, La Raza, or any related groups so no, he doesn't coddle racists.

Bill Clinton’s pardon of fugitive Marc Rich continues to pay big

Fifteen years ago this month, on Jan. 20, 2001, his last day in office, Bill Clinton issued a pardon for international fugitive Marc Rich. It would become perhaps the most condemned official act of Clinton’s political career. A New York Times editorial called it “a shocking abuse of presidential power.” The usually Clinton-friendly New Republic noted it “is often mentioned as Exhibit A of Clintonian sliminess.”

Congressman Barney Frank added, “It was a real betrayal by Bill Clinton of all who had been strongly supportive of him to do something this unjustified. It was contemptuous.”

Marc Rich was wanted for a list of charges going back decades. He had traded illegally with America’s enemies including Ayatollah Khomeini’s Iran, where he bought about $200 million worth of oil while revolutionaries allied with Khomeini held 53 American hostages in 1979.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Where did any court legislate from the bench? Once again, the DOJ ran an investigation into the MCSO. Thanks to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 the DOJ has oversight over local law enforcement agencies.

As a result of that investigation the DHS, the department responsible for enforcing immigration laws, revoked the MCSO's ability to identify and detain illegal immigrants.

The findings of that investigation also led to the DOJ (once again within their power) filing a case against the MCSO leading to United States v. Maricopa County. The decision of that case stated that the MCSO needed to stop practices identified as illegal profiling. To facilitate this decision a monitor was appointed. Arpaio refused to change the problem practices and he refused the monitor.

That is why he was held in contempt of court. He even admitted guilt to charges of civil contempt. The reason the case moved forward was because he was also charged with criminal contempt.

There was no legislating from the bench. There was simply a judge making a decision based on information given by the DOJ, who were well within their power. If you think anyone was trying to legislate beyond their ability it would be the DHS. But their actions have nothing to do with this case.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

"Legislating from the bench" (a.k.a. "activist judges") is right-wing speak for "judicial decisions that don't support and promote our agenda."

a reply to: Gandalf77

Actually, where existing laws are concerned, it's any ruling that sets precedent. If courts interpreted laws correctly 20 years ago (and given the position that disagreeing with a judge is contemptful, one is only left with the option of agreeing with those verdicts), the interpretation of those laws cannot change with time because those interpretations MUST be based on the Constitutionality of said laws. The Constitution is absolute, period.

a reply to: xuenchen

And Ford pardoned Nixon. Just because Presidents have used poor judgment in the past that doesn't excuse poor judgement in the present.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

And what precedent was set with the MCSO case?

a reply to: Xcalibur254

The precedent of the DOJ ordering existing, tested federal immigration laws be ignored by the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office and then a judge summarily ordering the same.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Gandalf77

Actually, where existing laws are concerned, it's any ruling that sets precedent. If courts interpreted laws correctly 20 years ago (and given the position that disagreeing with a judge is contemptful, one is only left with the option of agreeing with those verdicts), the interpretation of those laws cannot change with time because those interpretations MUST be based on the Constitutionality of said laws. The Constitution is absolute, period.

I could be mistaken, but weren't slaves initially deemed to be property rather than people--and therefore not entitled to any rights, freedoms, etc? Glad some interpretations do indeed change with time. The constitution is a dynamic, living document.

a reply to: Gandalf77

The Constitution is not a living breathing document to be willy nilly interpreted by activist judges.

It is set in stone....period...until a process has been implemented and procedures followed to change it.

a reply to: Gandalf77

Interpretations didn't change, the law changed, via Congress and then signature of the President. The courts had nothing to do with elimination of slavery in the US. If the Obama administration wanted to change federal immigration policy, then they should have done so via Congress and the Constitutional legislative process.

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: Gandalf77

The Constitution is not a living breathing document to be willy nilly interpreted by activist judges.

It is set in stone....period...until a process has been implemented and procedures followed to change it.

The Constitution isn't what judges are to interpret anyway. By definition, nothing in the Constitution can be "Unconstitutional." Judges are tasked purely with interpreting the law against the intents and limitations of the Constitution. Anything further by them is a gross overreach of their powers and represents an unbalance in the balance of powers.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Exactly!

The #1 reason I voted for Trump was so another liberal activist justice would not be appointed. Antonin Scalia's demise was a wake-up call.

ETA: When he died, Hillary was expected to win the presidency. I shudder to think how close we came!

a reply to: Gandalf77

That ruling was what lead to the emancipation proclaimation. Prior to that, yes, slaves were legally the property of their owners per the law.

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: Gandalf77

The Constitution is not a living breathing document to be willy nilly interpreted by activist judges.

It is set in stone....period...until a process has been implemented and procedures followed to change it.

Most religious texts are set in stone too, they were written thousands of years ago. That doesn't change the fact that every sect has it's own interpretation though.