Posted on Aug 30, 2017
Judge won't vacate Arpaio's contempt conviction without oral arguments
510
3
4
2
2
0
Still might have to have his day in court.
Guilty until pardoned except accepting a pardon generally implies admission of guilt
Guilty until pardoned except accepting a pardon generally implies admission of guilt
Judge won't vacate Arpaio's contempt conviction without oral arguments
Posted from usatoday.comPosted in these groups: 
Justice
Justice
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 1
0
0
0
Legal maneuvers that bring more attention to the case and pardon. I'm not sure him ignoring the court order was the proper way for an officer of the law to act but he did, so it's all history now. POTUS can pardon or commute legally so whether we disagree or not does not matter. It may establish an expectation of pardon with others in the future and that is a larger concern. Each branch of government is supposed to have separate powers that establish checks and balances. When these powers are removed or superseded it establishes a way to circumvent the overall balance within government. This time his disregard was about profiling with apprehension, but it has the potential to be things far more serious. His pardon sends a message that one faction of government will have its way one way or another and that opens the door for many things that we might later regret. I understand the Sheriff's tough stance on crime and immigration and it may have been warranted in the region, but it can't be proper for anyone to disregard the lawful orders of the court. Any private citizen that violated a court order would be held accountable. We should expect at least that level of accountability or more with elected officials that enforce the law.
(0)
(0)
MSgt Michael Bischoff
CWO3 (Join to see) I think the premise of wanting to vacate the conviction basically means it never existed. That is what the Arpiao's lawyers want. The prosecution wants the conviction to stay on the record as guilty and then pardoned.
(1)
(0)
CWO3 (Join to see)
MSgt Michael Bischoff - Yeah, and I'm not sure I agree with that. It smacks of privilege and being above the law. If you or I get busted we go through the process. If we're lucky enough to afford an attorney that can plea it down we still pay court costs, have an arrest and conviction and the record still exists. Making something "disappear" like it never happened gets into another whole ballgame. It's like erasing the tapes of the whole event. No record of it ever exists other than in the memory of citizens. I don't care what party or background. It's a double standard. Even when W pardoned Libby it didn't disappear. That's like a whole new set of laws for the ruling class. Many are mentioning Manning and all the commutations by Obama but a commutation is not the same as a pardon. It's just an early release and all records remain in place. Every POTUS does it but usually in the last month or so in office. This goes one step higher into "make it go away" no court records, nothing. He tried to make the case go away but couldn't so this is just the same except we got to see it run its course. Not a good precedent for any party. I hope it doesn't become a habit for legal and not political reasons. Nothing we can do so just accept it and move on.
(0)
(0)
CWO3 (Join to see)
GySgt John Olson - It says "who needs checks and balances?" That's fine if you are inside the circle but no so for all others. The whole intent of separation of powers was to ensure no one branch had total authority. The framers saw the dangers of that. Without it the Executive can arbitrarily overturn whatever it feels like, with no means of remedy or legal process to intervene. New territory and not good. Has nothing to do with majority party or who is in WH. I would not feel good about it no matter who was in power. Just accept it and move on is the only COA, unless you are in the legal system.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google