Posted on 03/23/2009 12:30:01 PM PDT by mnehring
I am not convinced that these men acted properly at all times and, in fact, I believe their convictions may have been proper under the law.
Undoubtedly preserving and protecting our borders is dangerous work, and the criminal a-hole who was shot is a very unsympathetic "victim", but that doe snot excuse improper conduct.
I am glad that Bush took action; I do not think he should have pardoned them.
PING!
RAMOS/COMPEAN Ping
Please freepmail me if you want on or off this list.
>> The court has usurped much more than that.
They have usurped, certainly — though, not necessarily to this extent (but, perhaps). Conservatives, however, did not support those judicial seizures of authority — why would we support this one?
>> I suspect they could make the ruling and see what happens.
I’ll tell you what will happen — the Court will have the power to determine what is a “high crime and misdemeanor”, and seize the authority to eject a President — by declaring him “unqualified”.
Every single conservative President from now until judgment day will be required to undergo periodic Supreme Court removal proceedings. Every two-bit liberal attorney and ACLU hack will initiate random “removal” proceedings for trumped up charges (War crimes, domestic surveillance, complicity in 9-11, torture, cannibalism, blah, blah, blah ...).
And, instead of impeachment being limited to 435 elected officials with two-year terms ... the authority will now rest in NINE unelected unaccountable Judges.
This would be a LOUSY precedent to set.
SnakeDoc
I would hire these two guys in a spilt second and most anyone else for example that’s been with the government need not apply.
"Of course, it's not a ruling on the merits and expresses no opinion on the underlying issues. Statistically, it is very difficult to get into the Supreme Court. But we'll be going back into federal district court down the road on a motion to vacate and raising a host of issues. So it certainly is not over."
What amazes me is that the Soviet Union sentenced Gary Powers to less time in prison for piloting a U-2 spy plane than the US sentenced these two border patrol agents for not filing proper paperwork. Where is the tyranny now?
HAH! There was a whole slew! And the SCOTUS not hearing the case does not mean they found nothing wrong -- it means they chose not to hear it!
>> One could make the argument that he was never president in the first place, that in fact the office has been vacant since Bush’s term was up.
One could make any argument one wanted. But, given that he had a substantial electoral majority, was seated by electors, was sworn in, and has been acting with Presidential authority for two months (including making a State of the Union address, signing legislation, nominating officials, and making executive orders) — it seems to me that argument wouldn’t hold up.
>> In fact, I have a hard time swallowing the idea that an invalid election can possibly lead to a valid president who must be removed by valid proceedure.
I am not convinced that he is unqualified. But, an unqualified individual can be legally seated (i.e. seated according to all procedural requirements) — thus requiring him to be legally unseated according to the procedural requirements of removing an individual properly seated.
Regardless of his BC status — he was seated according to the Constitutional requirements of seating a President. He must be removed Constitutionally.
SnakeDoc
Weren’t they convicted basically for not filling out the appropriate paperwork.
The admininstrative count[s] were set aside/overturned by the Appeals Court if I remember correctly. Someone will correct if I”m wrong as they should.
HOGWASH. We sympathize with them due to an overzealous prosecutor who lied to Congress, did everything possible to withhold evidence from a jury, and used a series of ever increasing indictment threats to push them into a plea deal.
I refer not so much to the shooting but to their actions afterwards.
Well the shooting is the ONLY thing at issue here. All the bogus charges related to the so-called "coverup" were THROWN OUT on appeal.
Really? You think a Law Enforcement Officer, in the course of his duties of apprehending a perpetrator, should be convicted of ASSAULT? I assume you were displeased that they were not found guilty of ASSAULT TO COMMIT MURDER?
No. They were convicted of Assault and since they were carrying guns (as LEOs do in the course of their jobs), it was then further categorized by Sutton & Co as a "Crime of Violence" and carried a mandatory 10 year sentence... Thanks to a complete twisting of the law by Johnny Sutton and his thugs in the US Attorney's office.
I think you may be right that they screwed up on technicalities after they were arrested.
But as far as I can see, those were all minor technical offenses, committed because they could see that a corrupt prosecutor was out to get them. I don’t think they committed any basic crime in shooting a drug smuggler who refused to stop when told to and who seemed to be threatening them.
It’s much like the case of Scooter Libby. No crime was committed in the first place, and he wasn’t the guy who first leaked to the press anyway, as Fitz well knew. But they kept pressuring him until they managed to nail him on a probably false technicality—his word against a lying TV talking head.
And we know how much Johnny Sutton LOVES deputies, border patrol agents, etc. His employment of the enhancement of using a firearm in the commission of a felony to get them lengthy sentences was abominable.
They tried to stop a drug smuggler - a drug smuggler that continued to smuggle drugs with impunity after he was given a revolving door pass into and out of the United States.
I believe, by the way, that Ramos and Compean did not want a pardon because it would, in effect, have halted the appeal process and it was important to them to try to clear their names.
I am sure there are good businessmen in Texas and/or other states that would be proud to put these men on the payroll. But I am all for the book writing!
Present!
“But, an unqualified individual can be legally seated (i.e. seated according to all procedural requirements) — thus requiring him to be legally unseated according to the procedural requirements of removing an individual properly seated.”
Like I said, I’m not a legal scholar. I understand that for practical purposes it’s better to go along with habit and not cast doubt over who’s really in charge. You want the system to run smoothly despite the letter of the law in certain situations.
But if it’s true that legally ineligible candidates can be legally seated, I don’t think I like the law anymore.
"abominable" is a very strong word... but not strong enough in this case.
I haven't found a good word to describe Sutton, other than "Thug."
Bush pardoned Ramos and Compean last.
He was undecided until he realized he had already pardoned drug dealers and that 0bama just might pardon them if Bush did not. 0bama pardoning them as part of a big illegal alien amnesty
He didn’t pardon them, they asked not to be pardoned so they could fight the charges. He only commuted their sentences.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.