Posted on 04/18/2018 3:31:58 PM PDT by jazusamo
Dissenting judge on panel worries ruling could foster ‘inappropriate… political attacks’ on presidency
A federal appeals court said this week it will appoint a lawyer to argue that former Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s contempt of court conviction should remain on his record despite President Trump’s pardon.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that since the federal Justice Department is supporting both the pardon and Mr. Arpaio’s request to have his conviction stricken, someone else needs to argue the other side.
Mr. Arpaio argues that the pardon came before he had a chance to appeal his conviction, and even before the federal district judge in the case had a chance to rule on his request that it be set aside. The former Maricopa County sheriff’s opponents had said not only should the conviction stand, but the pardon should be deemed invalid because it subverted the justice system.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Post 37 and 38.
Like Marc Rich?
Uh, no. It's an admission that there is no justice to be found in our legal system.
Like Marc Rich.
Sure it is.
I heard you were the life of the party fungi.
Or are you a mushroom? They keep you in the dark and feed you lots of bullshit.
Isn’t double jeopardy the main issue in this renewed attack?
This isn’t about Sheriff Joe. This is about destroying the checks and balances that protect us from outright TYRANNY.
Those liberal judges didn’t like the Joe followed the Constitution like an American should!
The judiciary has decided it now runs the country.
Yep, especially the 9th Circus who seem to make law up as they go along.
Right.
There should be examples of wrongful convictions and that the convicted accepted pardons. Scooter Libby being a recent example. Moreover, the government denies constitutional rights to prosecuted individuals and the prosecuted are subjected to endless investigations (ex. Mike Flynn) all the way to the poor farm who have to pay endless court and lawyer fees. It’s not 1915 anymore.
Yep.
Wasn't that the same year the SCOTUS ruled that the establishment of a Federal Income Tax was constitutional?
The ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913 made income tax constitutional.
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.