Trump has pardoned Joe Arpaio

[fskimospy]

Nyet!😛 I had a discussion with my father a few weeks ago and he got upset when I tried to explain to him that under common law interpretations of law change with societal norms. If society continues to decay morally and ethically then pretty much anything goes. Studying constitutional law really woke me to up the sad legal reality we live in.😱

Of course common law changes with the times, that's its greatest strength. I find the idea that a more codified law would hold true in the face of societal decay to be...optimistic.

 

[woolfe9998]

Abusing or torturing the prisoners would be far worse than mere racial profiling, or telling a Judge to go shove it. And again, much of my agreement is purely based on the guy's age. The rest is based on no other crimes than contempt of court. He is not guilty of other crimes. We do not throw people in jail for what we want, we do it based on what they are found guilty of in a court of law.

So in some respect Trump has made a mockery of it by not waiting until after sentencing, and maybe even a period of time after that. End of his term would have been "standard".

OTOH, you are also wanting to argue for ending the rule of law and holding people accountable for crimes of which they have not been found guilty. I'm not about to stand for that.

"Telling a judge to shove it" then having the leader of the executive branch let you get away with it is tantamount to one branch of government usurping the power of another. You do understand that criminal contempt is literally the only way for courts to enforce their rulings, right? Without it, the courts would be symbolic at best. If there is no penalty for criminal contempt every time a POTUS sides with the person violating the order, then we may as well not have a judicial branch. Just let the King decide everything. A POTUS is supposed to respect the powers and traditional functions of the other branches of government. While contempt may not seem like a really sexy crime to you, it's actually just about the last thing a POTUS should ever issue a pardon for.

 

[fskimospy]

"Telling a judge to shove it" then having the leader of the executive branch let you get away with it is tantamount to one branch of government usurping the power of another. You do understand that criminal contempt is literally the only way for courts to enforce their rulings, right? Without it, the courts would be symbolic at best. If there is no penalty for criminal contempt every time a POTUS sides with the person violating the order, then we may as well not have a judicial branch. Just let the King decide everything. A POTUS is supposed to respect the powers and traditional functions of the other branches of government. While contempt may not seem like a really sexy crime to you, it's actually just about the last thing a POTUS should ever issue a pardon for.

Exactly. From a 'health of American democracy' standpoint it is way better for the president to be pardoning murderers and rapists than it is for people held in contempt of court. It's destroying the foundation of an independent judiciary.

 

[UberNeuman]

"Telling a judge to shove it" then having the leader of the executive branch let you get away with it is tantamount to one branch of government usurping the power of another. You do understand that criminal contempt is literally the only way for courts to enforce their rulings, right? Without it, the courts would be symbolic at best. If there is no penalty for criminal contempt every time a POTUS sides with the person violating the order, then we may as well not have a judicial branch. Just let the King decide everything. A POTUS is supposed to respect the powers and traditional functions of the other branches of government. While contempt may not seem like a really sexy crime to you, it's actually just about the last thing a POTUS should ever issue a pardon for.

Jackelass can't help bringing a breath of fresh pomposity to every thead. lol......

 

[woolfe9998]

Of course common law changes with the times, that's its greatest strength. I find the idea that a more codified law would hold true in the face of societal decay to be...optimistic.

FYI, our system is largely codified by now. For example, in the State of California, our annotated code books occupy at least a dozen bookshelves. That is just the statutes of one state. There are 49 others, and there are codes and ordinances in every county and city in the country, and then there's the federal codes. Then there are voluminous regulations on a federal, state and local level. The "common law" is more in the manner of varying interpretations that courts will place on statutes and on the Constitution. This isn't really the "common law" system we got from Britain anymore. Granted, many of these statutes are actually codifications of old common law, where a legislature decides to take law made by the judicial branch and make it into a statute. Whether based on it or not, these statutes generally supersede the common law, and there's a statute for almost everything now. The courts just don't make that much law any more. Their role is really in the manner of interpreting it.

 

[theeedude]

I think he has pissed off Mueller big time. Remember, Clintons pissed off Comey with Frank Rich pardon, and he waited 16 years to get back at them.

 

[agent00f]

Abusing or torturing the prisoners would be far worse than mere racial profiling, or telling a Judge to go shove it. And again, much of my agreement is purely based on the guy's age. The rest is based on no other crimes than contempt of court. He is not guilty of other crimes. We do not throw people in jail for what we want, we do it based on what they are found guilty of in a court of law.

So in some respect Trump has made a mockery of it by not waiting until after sentencing, and maybe even a period of time after that. End of his term would have been "standard".

OTOH, you are also wanting to argue for ending the rule of law and holding people accountable for crimes of which they have not been found guilty. I'm not about to stand for that.

Smart move to backtrack to try to keep your D friends here. Though the funniest part of this thread is when realibrad got all ready to shill for trump, then read all of the shit arpaio pulled with kiddy rape victims and thought: "I don't know about taking another bullet for this". Evidently protecting nazis/klan driving into a crowd is where he draws the line and the right's new hero finally crosses that.

 

[interchange]

Smart move to backtrack to try to keep your D friends here. Though the funniest part of this thread is when realibrad got all ready to shill for trump, then read all of the shit arpaio pulled with kiddy rape victims and thought: "I don't know about taking another bullet for this". Evidently protecting nazis/klan driving into a crowd is where he draws the line and the right's new hero finally crosses that.

I still have you on ignore, but curiosity got the better of me. I am choosing to reply only to say, man, you are annoying.

 

[agent00f]

I still have you on ignore, but curiosity got the better of me. I am choosing to reply only to say, man, you are annoying.

It's true that trite political players don't care for their little games getting exposed.

 

[Puffnstuff]

There might be a ray of hope on this situation.

 

[zinfamous]

"Telling a judge to shove it" then having the leader of the executive branch let you get away with it is tantamount to one branch of government usurping the power of another. You do understand that criminal contempt is literally the only way for courts to enforce their rulings, right? Without it, the courts would be symbolic at best. If there is no penalty for criminal contempt every time a POTUS sides with the person violating the order, then we may as well not have a judicial branch. Just let the King decide everything. A POTUS is supposed to respect the powers and traditional functions of the other branches of government. While contempt may not seem like a really sexy crime to you, it's actually just about the last thing a POTUS should ever issue a pardon for.

This is another knot that Congress should be adding to the yarn of high crimes and threats to democratic institutions of the USA that Trump is brazenly spinning, and would be yet another argument for impeachment, all on its own, even though we already have perhaps a ~dozen of them.

This alone is alarming abuse of power....but Congress still does nothing. So petty, these little babies. LoL--simply imagine if the Black Man had done a mere 30% of the vile things that Trump has already done! The pubs would have firey crosses lit up all over the country!

 

[realibrad]

Smart move to backtrack to try to keep your D friends here. Though the funniest part of this thread is when realibrad got all ready to shill for trump, then read all of the shit arpaio pulled with kiddy rape victims and thought: "I don't know about taking another bullet for this". Evidently protecting nazis/klan driving into a crowd is where he draws the line and the right's new hero finally crosses that.

Lol wut? When did I get ready to shill for Trump but then stopped when I learned about Arpaio? My first post in this thread was saying that pardons are a good thing when used by good people, and that what Trump did is the exact reason we need to elect better people. I do believe your memory has failed you again.

I wonder if you are a paid Russian troll?

 

[interchange]

I think it might take a constitutional amendment to limit the pardoning power of the president. Like it or not, it seems the founding fathers wanted the president to have this power unchecked. Of course, they also imagined an extremely small federal government and federal code for which to commit offenses against. And let's not forget the second amendment and how the US escaped tyranny. It was reasonable at the country's origin that if it became corrupt, the people would fight it with force.

Things are different now. Although Arpaio doesn't pose continued threat to the US, this choice would be enough for me to support a Congressional check on the president's pardoning power.

 

[Jhhnn]

I think it might take a constitutional amendment to limit the pardoning power of the president. Like it or not, it seems the founding fathers wanted the president to have this power unchecked. Of course, they also imagined an extremely small federal government and federal code for which to commit offenses against. And let's not forget the second amendment and how the US escaped tyranny. It was reasonable at the country's origin that if it became corrupt, the people would fight it with force.

Things are different now. Although Arpaio doesn't pose continued threat to the US, this choice would be enough for me to support a Congressional check on the president's pardoning power.

The answer is to elect decent human beings to be Presidents. Trumpsters, of course, have taken great delight in doing just the opposite.

 

[interchange]

The answer is to elect decent human beings to be Presidents. Trumpsters, of course, have taken great delight in doing just the opposite.

Honestly, this might be the better answer anyway. Expecting the system to find a solution for the mess we have made doesn't do anything for our chances of learning from that mistake.

Too bad I don't think we've learned squat.

 

[soundforbjt]

The answer is to elect decent human beings to be Presidents. Trumpsters, of course, have taken great delight in doing just the opposite.

That's what the electoral college was supposed to do originally.

 

[theeedude]

The answer is to impeach Trump. Even right wing National Review was saying that.
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...ential-pardon-power-congressional-impeachment

The President’s Pardon Power Is Absolute... But so is Congress’s impeachment power.

Just as a President can pardon for any reason he sees fit, Congress can impeach the president (and SCOTUS judges) for any reason they see fit.

 

[fskimospy]

I think it might take a constitutional amendment to limit the pardoning power of the president. Like it or not, it seems the founding fathers wanted the president to have this power unchecked. Of course, they also imagined an extremely small federal government and federal code for which to commit offenses against. And let's not forget the second amendment and how the US escaped tyranny. It was reasonable at the country's origin that if it became corrupt, the people would fight it with force.

Things are different now. Although Arpaio doesn't pose continued threat to the US, this choice would be enough for me to support a Congressional check on the president's pardoning power.

While most founding fathers (certainly not all) envisioned a smaller federal government and a smaller role for the president, prosecuting public officials for violating the constitution and then ignoring judgments of the courts would almost certainly have fallen well within the sort of things that would get someone federally prosecuted.

I mean this really is an attack on the separation of powers that our whole system of government is based on. The only thing that comes close IMO is the pardon of Nixon.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

While most founding fathers (certainly not all) envisioned a smaller federal government and a smaller role for the president, prosecuting public officials for violating the constitution and then ignoring judgments of the courts would almost certainly have fallen well within the sort of things that would get someone federally prosecuted.

I mean this really is an attack on the separation of powers that our whole system of government is based on. The only thing that comes close IMO is the pardon of Nixon.

It's also the reason they afforded impeachment powers to congress, as a check to remove someone who's negating the powers of the other branches by playing King. Now whether or not those powers will be utilized is another matter. It seems that for as far-reaching as our government is, weakness abounds.

 

[interchange]

While most founding fathers (certainly not all) envisioned a smaller federal government and a smaller role for the president, prosecuting public officials for violating the constitution and then ignoring judgments of the courts would almost certainly have fallen well within the sort of things that would get someone federally prosecuted.

I mean this really is an attack on the separation of powers that our whole system of government is based on. The only thing that comes close IMO is the pardon of Nixon.

So do you think they failed to realize the potential abuse if power with pardoning or decided intentionally not to limit it? Somewhat of an academic question because the nature of our government and society is so different than now. I am no originalist, but I do feel that original intent should be examined and considered before deciding to alter constitutional interpretation, and that there should be a compelling reason rather than preference for the judiciary to interpret law differently. Otherwise, the power to change the Constitution rests with Congress and the people.

 

[SMOGZINN]

The answer is to impeach Trump. Even right wing National Review was saying that.
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...ential-pardon-power-congressional-impeachment

Just as a President can pardon for any reason he sees fit, Congress can impeach the president (and SCOTUS judges) for any reason they see fit.

The answer is to elect decent human beings to be Presidents. Trumpsters, of course, have taken great delight in doing just the opposite.

The answer is to elect decent human beings to all offices. Something we have been failing at for half a century. If we followed that we wouldn't need to impeach the President, because the President wouldn't have pardoned Arpaio, because Arpaio wouldn't have been sheriff. But unfortunately we had a terrible person as a sheriff, pardoned by a terribly person as President, and that pardon is being ignored by hundreds of terribly people in Congress.

 

[fskimospy]

So do you think they failed to realize the potential abuse if power with pardoning or decided intentionally not to limit it? Somewhat of an academic question because the nature of our government and society is so different than now. I am no originalist, but I do feel that original intent should be examined and considered before deciding to alter constitutional interpretation, and that there should be a compelling reason rather than preference for the judiciary to interpret law differently. Otherwise, the power to change the Constitution rests with Congress and the people.

I am not a fan of playing founding father ouija as some people are, especially considering as a group the 'founding fathers' had hugely varying ideas on not only the purpose of government, but even what various parts of the Constitution meant. For example, plenty of the founding fathers thought a bill of rights was unnecessary because those rights were implicit in the original document. Clearly everyone did not agree on that, haha.

That being said, the document as a whole is for the most part insanely vague. For example, while the president lacks an apparent limiting power on pardoning, he's also tasked with ensuring that the laws are 'faithfully executed'. Does pardoning people who violate the Constitution violate that aspect of his duties? Maybe! I think for the most part they viewed the Constitution as an overarching statement of principles that would be filled in by laws and norms, a lot like how the UK functions. (the UK has no constitution, it's all basically laws and norms) So, did they collectively or in some plurality think the pardon power should be unlimited? I have no idea. Personally I don't really care either as they've been dead for several centuries and this is a government for the living, not the dead.

 

[interchange]

More and more I'd rather have the government the founding fathers envisioned. And before @agent00f et. al. go apeshit on me, I don't think that the Republican party is remotely close to any path (or genuine desire to be) there.

 

[bshole]

The courts just don't make that much law any more. Their role is really in the manner of interpreting it.

Kind of disagree. For example if the court swings and overthrows Roe V Wade, it is in effect making law. From my perspective, they are the only entity that really makes law, at least on the important issues.

 

[theeedude]

The answer is to elect decent human beings to all offices. Something we have been failing at for half a century. If we followed that we wouldn't need to impeach the President, because the President wouldn't have pardoned Arpaio, because Arpaio wouldn't have been sheriff. But unfortunately we had a terrible person as a sheriff, pardoned by a terribly person as President, and that pardon is being ignored by hundreds of terribly people in Congress.

People make mistakes. Distracted by buttery males, etc.