[Alberta's Child]

A pardon doesn't overturn a conviction at all. It just eliminates any punishment for it.

This isn't a case of a judge overstepping her authority. The timing of Trump's pardon of Arpaio was actually bad -- because Arpaio already had a motion before the judge to overturn his conviction. Despite the pardon, it's Arpaio who is pushing to have this motion heard. He'd rather have the conviction overturned (which means it isn't reflected anywhere in his record) than accept the pardon (which means it is).

[nikos1121]

Nixon and others received a pardon before they were even charged with a crime or indicted.

[pgkdan]

Thank you for clearing that up.

[pierrem15]

You're confusing a commutation of sentence with a full pardon.

A full pardon legally means, "no conviction."

[JamesP81]

My understanding is that a pardon makes it as if the conviction never happened.

I.E. if he is ever asked if he was convicted of a crime, he can legally answer “no”.

[deport]

Note the following from back in August:

Attorneys for Arpaio argued that because the former Maricopa County Sheriff was pardoned before he could
exhaust all of his appeals, his case is rendered moot. But because the case is moot, Arpaio cannot pursue
an overturning of his conviction. Thus, his only avenue is to have the court vacate it.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/28/politics/sheriff-joe-arpaio-move-dismiss-case/index.html

[DoughtyOne]

If that is true, then the judge needs to vacate the case.

It should not proceed, and she should know that.

It’s a waste of taxpayer money, and the court’s time.

[ctdonath2]

"Arpaio already had a motion before the judge to overturn his conviction. Despite the pardon, it's Arpaio who is pushing to have this motion heard. He'd rather have the conviction overturned (which means it isn't reflected anywhere in his record) than accept the pardon (which means it is)."

Interesting how facts can change everything.

[Verginius Rufus]

Arpaio wanted a jury trial, his right under the Bill of Rights. She denied him that and decided the case herself. If he had had a jury trial, it’s likely he would not have been convicted.

[jospehm20]

“A pardon is a government decision to allow a person who has been convicted of a crime to be free and absolved of that conviction, as if they were never convicted.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon

[SteveH]

thank you for that clarification.

[montag813]

This isn't a case of a judge overstepping her authority. The timing of Trump's pardon of Arpaio was actually bad -- because Arpaio already had a motion before the judge to overturn his conviction. Despite the pardon, it's Arpaio who is pushing to have this motion heard. He'd rather have the conviction overturned (which means it isn't reflected anywhere in his record) than accept the pardon (which means it is).

Having personally met Judge Bolton when I was working with the SB1070 team in Arizona in 2010, I can tell you former Sheriff Arpaio had ZERO chance of Bolton overturning the conviction. She is a hard core liberal activist who relished her own dismantling of the then-landmark AZ immigration law, and showed shockingly callous disregard for victims of illegal immigration. She does not belong on that court, or any other. Now or later, Trump's pardon would have had the same effect, as it was a political witch hunt.