White House has paperwork ready for Joe Arpaio pardon

a reply to: Aazadan

Did you just compare religious beliefs to societal governance? Your perspective is lacking.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
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.

Except, the Emancipation Proclamation didn't apply to northern states. It only applied to southern states which had already left the union and had become another country. It had as much legal weight as the US saying weed is now illegal in Norway.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Aazadan

Did you just compare religious beliefs to societal governance? Your perspective is lacking.

Yes, and I think it's an apt comparison because many people (you included) put the Constitution on a pedestal and treat it as if it came from God itself. Many have taken a religious fanaticism towards that document.

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.

Well, that's called Originalism. It's the popular interpretation and opinion of conservatives--Scalia, etc.
It's not a fact.

The other side is "The Living Constitution." Right-wingers hate it because it give judges more freedom.
It too is not a fact, just an interpretation.

The problem is that language itself is not set in stone. There is no such thing as original meaning. There is no such thing as permanence where language is concerned. Language itself is dynamic and living. Thus, anything couched in language is automatically subject to its inherent impermanence, it's constant flux and dynamism. Even the constitution cannot exist outside of the limitations of language.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Except that's not what happened. It is the job of the DHS to enforce immigration laws. They can, for lack of a better term, deputize other law enforcement agencies to help with the job. After reading the DOJ's report they chose to revoke this power from the MCSO. That is within in their right based on laws passed by Congress.

The DOJ investigation is also a power granted to them by Congress. Their ability to go to trial as the representative of the United States is also a power granted to them by Congress.

The Judicial Branch revoked no powers from the MCSO. They simply told them to stop breaking laws passed by Congress.

So I ask once again, who is overstepping what lines? Outside of the MCSO of course.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Aazadan

Might as well release Sheriff Joe early. O.J. Simpson committed far worse crimes, and he was released early.

While OJ Simpson killing 2 people is pretty heinous, Sheriff Joe tortured people and detained them unconstitutionally. Then he ignored federal orders to stop. His crimes are borderline traitorous. The fact that Trump is entertaining pardoning him at all is a slap in the face of any ideas he is trying to foster to heal the divides in this country.

What makes this even worse is unlike O.J., Sherrif Joe was an actual public servant, sworn to not only protect the public, but actually uphold the law and constitution of the United States. O.J. Simpson was a private citizen who murdered two people in a fit of jealous rage and revenge, and then got away with it because he was rich enough to afford the best lawyers, plus a prosecution that was overall inept and blew the case in the first place. He got away with it the same way mob bosses and celebrities get away with things the rest of us would do life or worse for.

But Sherrif Joe, who took an oath, betrayed it. True, he hasn't out and out murdered anyone in cold blood or revenge or anger, at least that we know of. But he did torture inmates and went beyond even the reasonable definition of strict, firm, no nonsense warden/correction officer into a lawless tyrant.

a reply to: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

Arpaio himself has bragged that one of his prisons was a concentration camp, and he was immensely proud of the fact that they were at times in dwellings, without water, that were so hot that the prisoners shoes were melting off their feet and that he had chain gangs made up entirely of children.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
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.

I had to go back and look at this, and interestingly enough, the Dread Scott v. Sandford decision is considered by most legal scholars to be 'dictum,' rather than 'binding precedent.'

It does seem to be at the top of just about every list of bad SCOTUS decisions...

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

Arpaio himself has bragged that one of his prisons was a concentration camp, and he was immensely proud of the fact that they were at times in dwellings, without water, that were so hot that the prisoners shoes were melting off their feet and that he had chain gangs made up entirely of children.

Do you have the sources where he said and did this? I'd look, but Im in the middle of other google searches.

originally posted by: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

Arpaio himself has bragged that one of his prisons was a concentration camp, and he was immensely proud of the fact that they were at times in dwellings, without water, that were so hot that the prisoners shoes were melting off their feet and that he had chain gangs made up entirely of children.

Do you have the sources where he said and did this? I'd look, but Im in the middle of other google searches.

www.phoenixnewtimes.com...

a reply to: Aazadan


Well it would be ok if Don had some political pro bono stuff he could work out in conjunction. Like the last two Democrats we had letting lose all sorts of knows violent radicals ect not to mention ICE under those administrations were nothing but bail bounds men for the Mexican cartels.

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.

Way to twist the story to support your narrative.

There is nothing unique about this pardon as the charge against him is Criminal Contempt of Court. That's a crime, it's not anything but a crime. Ignoring authority is illegal and is criminal, and that pardon is for the crime of contempt.

Not saying I agree with the pardon, that's irrespective of you outright lying in the original post.

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: Kali74

hahahaha.......raaaciiisssttt!

That word is so overused and abused.

And ignored when it shouldn't be. Arpaio is a racist monster.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Oh the PeeWee Herman level snark.

Owie...

a reply to: Aazadan

How far we've come from widespread liberal outrage over a (since proven false) claim that George Bush called the Constitution "just a goddamned piece of paper."

The document deserves the reverence it receives, if for no other reason than it being the only thing standing between our heads and a government bullet for questioning them in discussions such as this. So yeah, you still fall short in the perspective category.

a reply to: Kali74

I know you are, but what am I? Haha!

There's more than recent history with Arpaio.

If there is a shadow-government drug trafficking network (there is, IMO), then some officials, at our borders, are not only looking the other way, but they are filtering out the competition. Maybe even Arpaio...and during the Clinton, Bush, Obama years, even.

Arpaio: Addicted to Corruption – Part I (1932-1968)

It's worth considering, IMO.

What awful stuff has Joe done/overlooked to earn himself a presidential pardon?

I think it's a worthwhile question (even if you are someone who doesn't believe he ran interference FOR Obama on the birth certificate controversy).

a reply to: Aazadan

Thanks.



Wow. So the Alex Jones fanboys get their panties in a twist over non existant FeMA camps, but we got a sherrif here bragging about real ones. And supposedly, Sherriff Joe is a cult hero to the same.

Just.....wow.

a reply to: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

My track record of mocking that alphabet agency plant to harvest low hanging fruit, Alex Jones, would seem to run afoul of your theory here.

Not surprising from a guy who not only wants the police to have free reign, but also encouraged them to assault suspects.