Posted on 10/05/2017 6:18:40 AM PDT by rktman
A federal judge on Wednesday upheld President Donald Trump’s pardon earlier this year of 85-year-old former Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, rejecting legal challenges by outside groups.
U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton said that she had considered the petitions filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona and other organizations, including one staffed by lawyers who worked for former Democratic President Barack Obama’s administration, but found no legal grounds to overturn the pardon.
Bolton did not rule on a request by Arpaio’s attorneys to take the further step of vacating his conviction.
Trump, a Republican who has promised to build a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico, has praised Arpaio’s crackdown on illegal immigrants in Maricopa County, Arizona, that drew condemnation from civil rights groups.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Reuters - is there anything they DO know that is actually true?
Judges cannot overturn a pardon.
That’s why I’m PO’d. Why does this take up time in court? Same with the so called travel ban. It’s pretty clear that the president can keep anybody he wants out for whatever reason he wants. Grrrrrrrrr!
Yep. Stupid headline. The judge couldn’t overturn the pardon.
The illegal aliens lose one. It’s about time. They wanted Arpaio’s butt bad.
ARTICLE II, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 1
Seems clear.......
“refuses”?
Puleeze. This guy would have been impeached if he hadn’t followed the Constitution in this matter.
Judge has zero jurisdiction here.
The POTUS pardon power is absolute. It is one of the sole Executive powers that requires no consultation with Congress or the judiciary................
We’re probably not nuanced enough to completely understand the under’lying’ meaning. ;-) I guess I coulda just said we’re “two stoopid” but I thought I’d be kind since it’s early. LOL!
The judge had no power to overturn a pardon. Her ruling yesterday had nothing to do with "overturning a pardon."
President Trump issued his pardon after a motion had already been filed by Arpaio's legal team to have his original conviction overturned. Arpaio could have just dropped the whole thing at that point, but there was apparently some legal technicality in play that motivated him and his lawyers to insist that the judge consider the motion anyway. I believe it had something to do with the way Arpaio's legal record would be documented if he ever needed a security clearance in the future (or something like that).
For whatever reason, Arpaio and his lawyers decided that having his original conviction overturned on merit was preferable to having the charges disappear through the pardon.
The judge was never going to overturn Arpaio's pardon under any circumstances.
It keeps the liberal base from torching her house...That’s the reason she went along ..
There is nothing in the Constitution that could be construed to give the courts any say as to the pardoning power of the President. Just accepting the case in the first place is saying that a judge is competent to rule on the matter. He is not.
There is nothing in the Constitution that could be construed to give the courts any say as to the pardoning power of the President. Just accepting the case in the first place is saying that a judge is competent to rule on the matter. He is not.
Reuters just can’t help themselves. “Refuses” to overturn. How about “affirms the law”?
Well that’s just crazy. Doesn’t fit the story line their putting out. ;-)
So everybody knows a presidential pardon cannot be overturned by the judiciary yet there are these really nasty leftists and leftist groups that simply sought to inflict more damage on Arpaio.
IMO, that’s what this was all about. It was about the nasty left trying to even the score and get back at Arpaio. They all knew the outcome but sought to drag this out as a form of anguished punishment.
Nasty.
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.