Posted on 08/30/2017 11:55:43 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
After President Trump’s pardon of ex-sheriff Joe Arpaio, who had been convicted of criminal contempt for violating a court order designed to stop the violation of the constitutional rights of suspected illegal immigrants, conventional wisdom — and certainly the Trump administration — would have us believe that Trump’s pardon powers are unlimited. However, never before has someone stretched the pardon power so beyond its original intent. Trump has now drawn scrutiny not simply from critics of his racist rhetoric but from the court itself.
The Arizona Republic Reports:
U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton canceled former Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s upcoming sentencing hearing for his criminal contempt-of-court conviction, telling attorneys not to file replies to motions that were pending before his recent presidential pardon.
However, Bolton on Tuesday stopped short of throwing out the conviction based solely on Arpaio’s request. Instead she ordered Arpaio and the U.S. Department of Justice, which is prosecuting the case, to file briefs on why she should or shouldn’t grant Arpaio’s request.
In other words, this is no slam dunk.
Lurking in the background is the potential for Trump to pardon associates involved in the probe of possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials and the possible obstruction of justice that followed. The Arpaio pardon may well have been an attempt to signal to those officials and ex-officials that they can resist inquiries with the assurance that Trump will pardon them.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
This column from what passes at the WaPo for a conservative.
There is no issue in dispute here.
The sheriff was found by the judge to be in contempt. That stands. The president pardoned the sheriff. That stands.
That’s it. The case is over. There is nothing to set aside or to proceed on.
It is over.
>> The Constitutional Pardon Power is absolute. There is no “review.” <<
Wrong. If the SCOTUS decides to review the case, there will be a review.
(I’m not saying that’s a good thing, but merely that it’s a fact.)
Hi.
“Wrong. If the SCOTUS decides to review the case, there will be a review.”
The president’s pardon power under the Constitution is “plenary.”
A SCOTUS “review” would trigger a constitutional crisis.
5.56mm
“As for Arpiao’s request to throw out the conviction, the pardon makes that moot as well. He accepted the pardon so he accepts the conviction that makes the pardon necessary.”
You obviously don’t know Sheriff Arpaio and didn’t read the Arizona Phoenix article. Appaio will appeal his conviction just like the two senior FBI officials pardoned by President Reagan successfully did. One of them, Mark Felt, was “Deep Throat, and Nixon came to his defense on the pardon issue even knowing Felt had done him in!
See Wiki on Mark Felt:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Felt
“Despite their pardons, Felt and Miller won permission from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to appeal the conviction so as to remove it from their record and to prevent it from being used in civil suits by the victims of the break-ins they ordered.[66] Ultimately, Felt’s law license was returned by the court in 1982, which cited Reagan’s pardon.”
“What an asinine decision. Any police officer can arrest anyone on “reasonable belief” that a crime has been committed”
You are a little off. “Reasonable suspicion” is the term. It does not allow arrest, but only detention while the officer investigates further. When the officer through investigation has developed “probable cause” he may arrest. Beyond reasonable doubt is the standard for conviction.
In other words reasonable suspicion may form when the officer stops the car for a stop sign violation. He sees it has a Chihuahua license plate, nobody speaks any English, and maybe a Mexico city newspaper is on the dashboard. This could all be innocent and he may be here legally, but the officer may proceed.
Upon asking for ID, the officer is given a Mexican license. The Officer asks and his for they seem not to. documents authorizing him to be in America. He has none. You have now proceeded to “probable cause” and may arrest/detain him for ICE.
Yes is it liberal ladies. It's over.
“Wrong. If the SCOTUS decides to review the case, there will be a review.”
Kinda, they can review it, look at it, study it, whatever...but they may not overturn it. The entire POINT of pardon power is the executive has overruled a judge. That would be meaningless if a federal judge could then overrule his pardon.
The only way to deal with a pardon deemed inappropriate would be impeachment.
So this judge feels that she can override the President’s constitutionally mandated power to pardon?
Furthermore, the president has given a pardon. Say the Supremes want to review the case. Arpaio can flip them the finger and does not have to respond to anything regarding this case. He has been pardoned.
So maybe they want the US Atty and the Justice department to come present the facts to them.
That’s the executive and Trump can legally order them to not respond because the case is over....HE ended it.
So the Supremes hand out subpoenas and want them executed. The US Marshal Service is executive also, Trump legally orders them to take zero action on the case.
The Supremes have no method to “review” this. They have no authorized power to do this per the constitution.
.
Major Fake News!
Judge Bolton has demonstrated her willingness to play politics from the bench. She belongs in Federal Prison.
.
No. That's not what it says.
Yep what you say there is true. Reality usually takes a while to sink in with liberal nut cases.
Totally ignore her. Stony silencs; give her no response at all.
I find it interesting that the Democrats prosecuted Mark Felt for going after “domestic” enemies who were really foreign enemies trained by the KGB-backed Cubans...the Weather Underground...and Reagan pardoned him.
Now we have Sheriff Arpaio being persecuted and prosecuted by Eric Holder at the behest of Barry, a man DIRECTLY LINKED TO BILL AYERS of the Weather Underground four times from Sunday!!!
We all know that the reason that the Mainstream Media is going bonkers over Trump pardoning Arpaio is that they know Arpaio is hot on the trail of Barry’s bogus BC and they can’t stand the thought of their whole world collapsing if Arpaio and Trump are proved correct at the end of the day!
>> The Supremes have no method to “review” this <<
You’re confusing “review” with enforcement. The SCOTUS can review anything four members vote to review. But can they “enforce” an order just because five justices vote a certain way? Not necessarily.
>> They have no authorized power to do this per the constitution <<
No explicit power is authorized by the text. But the Supremes been making up new powers for themselves ever since the days of John Marshall in the Marbury case (1803). So who knows what power they might dream up next?
I thought the pardon is applicable despite the conviction - the conviction remains on the defendant’s record. In this case it sounds like she COULD dismiss the case but instead she’s going to rub it in and make sure he’s a convict.
This ho is dumber than a box of rocks. O'Reilly verbally beat Jenny like a red-headed step-child on his show last year.
PING!!!
Article and comments
https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3581889/posts?page=136#136
I find it interesting that the Democrats prosecuted Mark Felt for going after “domestic” enemies who were really foreign enemies trained by the KGB-backed Cubans...the Weather Underground...and Reagan pardoned him.
Now we have Sheriff Arpaio being persecuted and prosecuted by Eric Holder at the behest of Barry, a man DIRECTLY LINKED TO BILL AYERS of the Weather Underground four times from Sunday!!!
We all know that the reason that the Mainstream Media is going bonkers over Trump pardoning Arpaio is that they know Arpaio is hot on the trail of Barry’s bogus BC and they can’t stand the thought of their whole world collapsing if Arpaio and Trump are proved correct at the end of the day!
Thanks, Seizethecarp
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.