Arpaio Pardoned

[Birdjaguar]

Bummer. Another nail in the coffin trump is building for the rule of law.

 

[Camikaze]

It was a federal conviction. The President has the power to pardon federal crimes.

It's 'federal conviction' that I'm trying to unpack a little. A contempt conviction pursuant to a federal court's inherent jurisdiction (or perhaps more correctly, the inherent power ancillary to its invested jurisdiction) is presumably in a different category to a contempt conviction pursuant to some federal criminal statute. The former wouldn't involve the executive, as it's simply an exercise of the judiciary's own power, whereas the latter would be no different to any other federal crime. If Arpaio's contempt conviction falls into the latter category, then a pardon is obviously no different than it would be in any other case, although presumably the federal judiciary would still be free to exercise their inherent contempt powers. If Arpaio's contempt conviction falls into the former category, however, then I can't see how a pardon would be consistent with the separation of powers, or how presidential authority would extend into the judiciary's exclusive territory. It wouldn't be the equivalent of an exercise of prosecutorial discretion, it would be the equivalent of a prosecutor shoving a judge off the bench and pronouncing a sentence themselves. When I hear the word 'contempt', I naturally think of the former category, which is what piques my curiosity. Though even if the answer isn't statutory, I suppose the American relationship between the executive and judiciary is a little strange, so perhaps that's not seen as an Article III problem; I'm just riffing on the basis that it would scream of being a Ch III problem here.

 

[Birdjaguar]

@Kamikazi; More details here:

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news...und-guilty-criminal-contempt-court/486278001/

 

[inthesomeday]

What a well-functioning system American "justice" is

 

[Hrothbern]

What a well-functioning system American "justice" is

It is only 250 years old

 

[luiz]

What a well-functioning system American "justice" is

Presidential pardons do seem completely ridiculous and against the separation of powers. But I suppose you're happy Obama pardoned Bradley Manning.

Moderator Action: There is no need to intentionally misgender someone. Since you're aware of Manning's case as well as her subsequent pardon, you are also aware that she is not Bradley Manning. Chelsea Manning will suffice. - Vincour
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Moderator Action: The above was reversed through appeal. - Vincour

 

[Thorgalaeg]

The government has the authority to pardon in most countries. As Luiz says the very concept goes against separation of powers.

 

[Hrothbern]

The government has the authority to pardon in most countries. As Luiz says the very concept goes against separation of powers.

True
but any system, also the law and the interpretation of the law, has her system flaws.
A leader of a nation that has the right to pardon for exceptional situations that are "self evident" wrong in the more fundamental purpose/meaning of the law as seen by the people, helps the system.

But apart from that general consideration,
I think that this pardon only further divides the nation Trump leads, and he is doing the opposite of a wise statesman/leader.

 

[Bootstoots]

That's totally unsurprising. The bigger picture, though, is how quickly Sheriff Joe lost support in Maricopa County (Phoenix, suburbs, many outlying areas = 60% of state population).

2000: Arpaio wins 66.5-26.4 (margin +40.1%)
2004: Arpaio wins 56.7-30.7 (margin +26.0%, swing -14.1%)
2008: Arpaio wins 55.2-42.2 (margin +13.0%, swing -13.0%)
2012: Arpaio wins 50.7-44.7 (margin +6.0%, swing -7.0%)
2016: Arpaio loses 43.5-56.3 (margin -12.8%, swing -18.8%)

Trump actually did win Maricopa county - by less than the usual Republican average (47.7-44.8, margin +2.9%), but he still won it. There were a whole lot of people who could stomach Trump over Clinton but who couldn't bring themselves to reelect America's Toughest Sheriff™. His decline is not mostly explained by the increasing Hispanic proportion in the city; this was a factor, but by itself it couldn't have caused his support base to erode by double digits each election cycle. He pissed off a lot of whites too.

So yeah, of course Trump would pardon him; at the moment he doesn't seem to know how to anything but throwing red meat to his base, so this does that. But in general this tough-on-crime, pink-underwear with rotten food, obvious racism style of "justice" is in really steep decline, at least in terms of popular support. You might not know it from all the widely-covered white nationalist stuff, and the babblings of Trump, but it's actually becoming a less racist or at least less prison-supporting country in terms of overall attitudes as expressed in voting booths.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

True
but any system, also the law and the interpretation of the law, has her system flaws.
A leader of a nation that has the right to pardon for exceptional situations that are "self evident" wrong in the more fundamental purpose/meaning of the law as seen by the people, helps the system.

But apart from that general consideration,
I think that this pardon only further divides the nation Trump leads, and he is doing the opposite of a wise statesman/leader.

Sadly government pardons are usually given because ideological partisan or wicked reasons, at least in Spain and as seem in this thread, in USA.

In any case, it is an arbitrary power and has all the potential to be misused. If laws has fails and holes they should be patched through the legislative power which should be above the other two.

 

[Hrothbern]

Sadly government pardons are usually given because ideological partisan or wicked reasons, at least in Spain and as seem in this thread, in USA.

In any case, it is an arbitrary power and has all the potential to be misused. If laws has fails and holes they should be patched through the legislative power which should be above the other two.

For sure abuse will be there

In my country we have hundreds of pardons each year. Usual grounds are based on humanity and forgiveness versus the technical correct law decision, but also as correction for technical changes of the situation.

• New facts arise like someone else turns out to be the criminal for the case, wherefore the pardoned person was convicted (technical).
• The convicted person has a terminal disease, in which case depending on the situation, full pardon or shorter prison time is given (humanity).
• The person pardoned or getting a shorter prison time, was convicted based on an old law, and would not be convicted by the new law and the mimimum prescribed punishment by jurisprudence not able anymore to adapt for that societal change(most of the time a new law is only made if there is already for a relative long time a new opinion among the people and the politicians that has been going on long enough to be sure it sticks. Conventional wisdom to prevent a volatile hence and forth change of laws, but also felt as unjust for people convicted during that transition period).
• And as simple ones: someone drives to fast because he is bringing his pregnant wife to the hospital. Somebody celebrating something special is violating noise laws: the neighbours stood in their technical law "right" but by the grace of pardon they are reminded that a once in so many years event should be tolerated in our peoples culture.

In many countries with a more repressing culture, special celebrations are used for correcting mass political convictions of the past, that would not have happened in that actual moment. I find this one more disputable because it lowers the treshold to terrorise the people by autocratic leaders, by using the stick & honey method, but there are enough examples where peaceful change of governments were the cause of the collective pardons.

It has also to do with the nations culture. How strict is that culture and how tolerate and forgiving for small sins.

 

[EnglishEdward]

That's totally unsurprising. The bigger picture, though, is how quickly Sheriff Joe lost support in Maricopa County (Phoenix, suburbs, many outlying areas = 60% of state population).

2000: Arpaio wins 66.5-26.4 (margin +40.1%)
2004: Arpaio wins 56.7-30.7 (margin +26.0%, swing -14.1%)
2008: Arpaio wins 55.2-42.2 (margin +13.0%, swing -13.0%)
2012: Arpaio wins 50.7-44.7 (margin +6.0%, swing -7.0%)
2016: Arpaio loses 43.5-56.3 (margin -12.8%, swing -18.8%)

Perhaps the conservatives there had aesthetic qualms about supporting a transvestite policy of dressing male prisoners in pink.

Obviously Donald Trump does not, but then his own aesthetics clearly favours artificial orange coloured hair.

 

[El_Machinae]

The important bit is that the taxpayers pay for Arpaio's abuses and contempt. Judge tells a dude to behave, final warning, and the resulting torts against his abuses are paid by people who didn't want him there any longer

But golly, white Americans who don't care if fellow citizens are abused are happy

 

[inthesomeday]

Presidential pardons do seem completely ridiculous and against the separation of powers. But I suppose you're happy Obama pardoned Chelsea Manning

I don't credit Obama with Chelsea being pardoned, I credit the liberal media pressuring Obama to throw the people a bone. I mean, I know she was innocent of any actual crimes against anybody, and so did everyone else, but she hurt the government so naturally the government tried to hurt her back. Obama pardoning her was more to do with the fact that they realized itd be more of a headache from activists if they kept her locked up.

And presidential pardons aren't the problem. My post was completely unironic. The "justice" system is working perfectly to do exactly what it's intended for. Arpaio extracted free labor and then murdered a group that has been thoroughly dehumanized in American capitalism-- prisoners of color, particularly "illegal" immigrants-- and so he is being rewarded by the system that has benefited.

 

[Zkribbler]

I have been moved to write a song:

One forty-five in the hot sun
I am the law and the law won
I am the law and the law won
They begged for their rights, but they got none
I am the law and the law won
I am the law and the law won

They might be guilty, or maybe not
A wetback or his son
If they ain’t white, they’re guilty as sin
I am the law and the law won
I am the law and the law won

The court says, “Stop!” but I’ve just begun
I am the law and the law won
I am the law and the law won
If they are raped, it’s all good fun
I am the law and the law won
I am the law and the law won

No food for you, nor medicine too
Court orders, I can shun
You got no rights, ‘less your eyes are blue
I am the law and the law won
I am the law and the law won
I am the law and the law won
I am the law and the law won

 

[VicRatlhead5199]

Donny Tiny-hands has been losing support even in his own base, just look at things Ann Coulter has said about him recently. Even the conservative pundits debating at Politicon avoided directly supporting him. This is just like the trans ban except he's throwing a bone to a different section of his base, the rabid anti-foreigner portion. He knows the left will get pissed about it but it will get them to stop talking about his gaffe concerning Charleston. A gaffe he acknowledges by editing his self-quote at his rally in Phoenix. At this point I think we should just expect this kind of stuff from our joke of a POTUS.

I've already seen the response his base has to this. They just remind us lib snowflakes that those people were illegal immigrants so they were criminals because they broke the law. They just don't care about cruel and unusual punishment. Remember, according to that particular portion of his supporters the Constitution only protects their free speech to support righty causes, freedom to choose a Christian sect as your religion and your right to own a...bazooka, I guess.

 

[onejayhawk]

Donny Tiny-hands has been losing support even in his own base, just look at things Ann Coulter has said about him recently. Even the conservative pundits debating at Politicon avoided directly supporting him. This is just like the trans ban except he's throwing a bone to a different section of his base, the rabid anti-foreigner portion. He knows the left will get pissed about it but it will get them to stop talking about his gaffe concerning Charleston. A gaffe he acknowledges by editing his self-quote at his rally in Phoenix. At this point I think we should just expect this kind of stuff from our joke of a POTUS.

I've already seen the response his base has to this. They just remind us lib snowflakes that those people were illegal immigrants so they were criminals because they broke the law. They just don't care about cruel and unusual punishment. Remember, according to that particular portion of his supporters the Constitution only protects their free speech to support righty causes, freedom to choose a Christian sect as your religion and your right to own a...bazooka, I guess.

This is not supported by polling numbers. For example, the RCP average has bottomed out. Do you know anyone that actually voted for Trump that has reconsidered?

J

 

[Birdjaguar]

@ J: Peggy Noonan.

 

[VicRatlhead5199]

This is not supported by polling numbers. For example, the RCP average has bottomed out. Do you know anyone that actually voted for Trump that has reconsidered?

J

I know people who voted for Trump that didn't want to on the day of the election. I know people who willingly voted for him and now just shake their head whenever he's mentioned. I'm not sure how you can say it's not supported by polling numbers, his favorability has steadily decreased, even among Republicans. I used Anne Coulter as an example because she literally wrote a book about how great he'd be and publicly stumped for him. Now she has made multiple statements about her disappointment in him. I'm not trying to be mean but the only people still loving him have their heads stubbornly buried in a hole ignoring reality.

He made a lot of promises that sounded good. Some of us saw through the BS, many didn't. Even if he was 100% genuine in his promises, his ineptitude, abrasiveness and lack of focus make it very hard to carry them out. While someone may love everything he says, the way he almost constantly shoots himself in the foot makes trying to support him frustrating.

 

[onejayhawk]

@ J: Peggy Noonan.

You know Peggy personally? The point is whether the Trump base is significantly eroding, not whether he has lost anyone, anywhere. I am not seeing erosion in my circle of contacts. The fact that you are citing a writer seems to indicate you are not either.

I know people who voted for Trump that didn't want to on the day of the election. I know people who willingly voted for him and now just shake their head whenever he's mentioned. I'm not sure how you can say it's not supported by polling numbers, his favorability has steadily decreased, even among Republicans. I used Anne Coulter as an example because she literally wrote a book about how great he'd be and publicly stumped for him. Now she has made multiple statements about her disappointment in him. I'm not trying to be mean but the only people still loving him have their heads stubbornly buried in a hole ignoring reality.

He made a lot of promises that sounded good. Some of us saw through the BS, many didn't. Even if he was 100% genuine in his promises, his ineptitude, abrasiveness and lack of focus make it very hard to carry them out. While someone may love everything he says, the way he almost constantly shoots himself in the foot makes trying to support him frustrating.

You can leave the first group out. They were voting against Clinton. The others you are describing do not match with "losing the support of his base." We saw similar things in 2009. There is a big gap between disillusioned and turning.

J