Trump pardoned former sheriff Joe Arpaio

[Dave70968]

Nope. Snow.

We were both mistaken. Judge Snow was the (second) judge who found him guilty of civil contempt, and referred the case for criminal prosecution. The judge in the criminal contempt case was Judge Susan Bolton. You can read the whole verdict in the criminal case at http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/files/usa_v._arpaio_et_al__docket_n.pdf.

 

[Dave70968]

Was Trump's pardoning of Arpaio illegal and against his Constitutional right? There are limitations as to whom/circumstances the POTUS can pardon.

Article II, Section 2: "...and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." This isn't an impeachment (and, in fact, couldn't be, since Arpaio isn't a federal official), so it was entirely within Trump's constitutional authority.

 

[Dave70968]

It does not matter, the President has pardon authority. All most of us are saying is we agree with the pardon.
Even the members that are saying they agree with the sheriff for trying to enforce federal law, are saying it was in response to Obama not enforcing the law. In our nation, there is a growing frustration with the legal system, because it is becoming politically active. You keep arguing about what the law says, black and white. When most of us know that many judges are interpreting what the law means.

It's entirely your right to agree with the pardon, just as it's mine to disagree. But a lot of people are arguing that what Arpaio did was legal, which simply isn't so. I realize that it was a reaction to the previous administration's failure to enforce the law, but that failure doesn't create authority for somebody else to do it. I've demonstrated that, and the courts have explained it pretty well.

Arpaio violated an injunction, and was properly convicted for criminal contempt. Trump's pardon implicitly sanctioned that contempt. Whether that leads to more law enforcement ignoring the rule of law remains to be seen, but when the pendulum swings, and it's used against you--say, a gun grab--don't say you weren't warned.

 

[Dave70968]

Incidentally, the criminal contempt ruling was appealed; it was upheld in part and reversed in part. Those interested in getting the facts can read it at http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2015/04/15/13-16285.pdf.

(Side note: is there any way we can get the ability to upload a PDF?)

 

[Pokinfun]

It's entirely your right to agree with the pardon, just as it's mine to disagree. But a lot of people are arguing that what Arpaio did was legal, which simply isn't so. I realize that it was a reaction to the previous administration's failure to enforce the law, but that failure doesn't create authority for somebody else to do it. I've demonstrated that, and the courts have explained it pretty well.

Arpaio violated an injunction, and was properly convicted for criminal contempt. Trump's pardon implicitly sanctioned that contempt. Whether that leads to more law enforcement ignoring the rule of law remains to be seen, but when the pendulum swings, and it's used against you--say, a gun grab--don't say you weren't warned.

Why waste time arguing that the tactics being used legal, that is settled. You are attempting to win a different argument about the pardon, by arguing about the original offence. You and I both know that you are close to a logical fallacy.

 

[Annie]

It's entirely your right to agree with the pardon, just as it's mine to disagree. But a lot of people are arguing that what Arpaio did was legal, which simply isn't so. I realize that it was a reaction to the previous administration's failure to enforce the law, but that failure doesn't create authority for somebody else to do it. I've demonstrated that, and the courts have explained it pretty well.

Arpaio violated an injunction, and was properly convicted for criminal contempt. Trump's pardon implicitly sanctioned that contempt. Whether that leads to more law enforcement ignoring the rule of law remains to be seen, but when the pendulum swings, and it's used against you--say, a gun grab--don't say you weren't warned.

Lol, that IS true ... but it's also true of pardons that several presidents have passed out. Bottom line is connections to power (or attention from those officials) can get you off ... but I wouldn't recommend any of us commoners counting on it as a "Get Outta Jail Free" card ...

Which is why threads like this amuse me. (And why I don't like cherry-picking ... because in the end I'd wager everything I own -- which admittedly is not much -- that no one reading this post in the next couple of hours will go to jail for ANYTHING and get a Presidential Pardon ...)

I think Presidents use pardons to make political statements now -- maybe they've done it all along and I just wasn't paying attention -- and Trump is no different in that respect. He's sending a message ... and it's a much different message than the one the previous administration sent.

 

[tomthebaker]

Again, any presidential pardon upsets the rule of law. The courts convicted, the president reverses that. This one is no different from any other pardon.

 

[Dave70968]

Again, any presidential pardon upsets the rule of law. The courts convicted, the president reverses that. This one is no different from any other pardon.

True, but some are genuinely in the name of correcting an injustice committed in the name of the law. First to come to mind is Richard Paey. He was convicted (after his third trial) of drug trafficking for simple possession of an arbitrarily-large quantity of painkillers. He had prescriptions for all of them. The prosecution never even alleged that he intended to distribute, let alone put on evidence to that effect; it was strictly on quantity (Florida law, like many states, has a presumption that "over x quantity" means "distribution"). Ironically, in prison, he was given an even larger prescription. Sentenced to the 25-year mandatory minimum, Gov. Charlie Crist pardoned him after 3 1/2 years.

Violation of the rule of law? Yes. Just? Absolutely.

 

[Glocktogo]

Fine. Prove me wrong. I already invited that upthread. Show me where anything I've said is false, and I'll say here--in large, bold print--that you were right and I was wrong.

False, no. Somewhat misleading, yes. While immigration and a host of other federal laws enjoy supremacy, supremacy doesn't always equal exclusion. The administrative branch has the authority to delegate certain federal authorities and powers to state and local governments, to include criminal AND civil enforcement. Joint task forces for which local and state law enforcement officers are issued federal credentials and powers come to mind. There are also many MOU's and MOA's in effect which vest local and state authorities to act in stead of federal agencies. The DoJ may subsume certain civil cases under criminal authorities. I'm working a case now where that's a distinct possibility.

The courts may at a later date nullify these actions but even then, it only applies to the circuit in which the ruling is made. Other circuits following that court ruling is voluntary until such time the SCOTUS reviews the case and makes a final ruling, or declines the case and it's made a matter of "settled" case law.

At this point in time, I neither agree nor disagree with the pardon. IMO, it's less egregious than some of Obama's pardons (traitor Manning comes to mind), but still may not be a good idea. Some of the things Arpaio did were wrong, but not all. Had the Obama administration performed their immigration duties sufficiently, there never would've been an issue to start with. IOW, it's disingenuous for the federal judiciary to turn a blind eye to that fact while issuing blanket orders to Arpaio's office to cease and desist entirely. A targeted order would've been sufficient and appropriate, but yes they're playing a bit of politics as well.

Please don't attempt to tell me I'm wrong, because I've spent FAR too much time dealing directly with USCIS and ICE-HSI this month for that.

 

[Dave70968]

False, no. Somewhat misleading, yes. While immigration and a host of other federal laws enjoy supremacy, supremacy doesn't always equal exclusion. The administrative branch has the authority to delegate certain federal authorities and powers to state and local governments, to include criminal AND civil enforcement. Joint task forces for which local and state law enforcement officers are issued federal credentials and powers come to mind. There are also many MOU's and MOA's in effect which vest local and state authorities to act in stead of federal agencies. The DoJ may subsume certain civil cases under criminal authorities. I'm working a case now where that's a distinct possibility.

The courts may at a later date nullify these actions but even then, it only applies to the circuit in which the ruling is made. Other circuits following that court ruling is voluntary until such time the SCOTUS reviews the case and makes a final ruling, or declines the case and it's made a matter of "settled" case law.

At this point in time, I neither agree nor disagree with the pardon. IMO, it's less egregious than some of Obama's pardons (traitor Manning comes to mind), but still may not be a good idea. Some of the things Arpaio did were wrong, but not all. Had the Obama administration performed their immigration duties sufficiently, there never would've been an issue to start with. IOW, it's disingenuous for the federal judiciary to turn a blind eye to that fact while issuing blanket orders to Arpaio's office to cease and desist entirely. A targeted order would've been sufficient and appropriate, but yes they're playing a bit of politics as well.

Please don't attempt to tell me I'm wrong, because I've spent FAR too much time dealing directly with USCIS and ICE-HSI this month for that.

You are correct in that the Administrative Agencies can delegate some authority, but that's at their discretion. It's not up to the state/local level to subsume that authority on its own--hence the quote in the order that “states do not have the inherent authority....” There's no violation of the Supremacy Clause if fed.gov passes a law pursuant to the Constitution allowing delegation (which would include the Administrative Procedures Act, giving subdelegation authority to the original delegate, the administrative agency). That just seemed like too esoteric an argument even for me, but yes, you're entirely correct.