Ideally, we shouldn’t ignore it, no, from a moral standpoint. But culturally and politically I do believe we’ve entered an inevitable death spiral. I’m a pessimist.
In a historical context, this pardon will just be seen as an example of how the executive branch’s power became (over the course of 70 years) inflated beyond what it was intended to be. It will be talked about alongside the Court Packing scheme as examples of executive overreach, and if we survive these times, it will be shown why the separation of powers are important.
Trump’s pardon is legal, but the message it’s sent has basically been that the Executive can “trump” anything the Judiciary does. It is a major upset of the balance of powers. It is essentially a giant middle finger toward the Judicial Branch and to the concept of the rule of law; the rule of man has usurped the rule of law.
Nothing vague about a person’s quality of character and identifying those traits is not as difficult as you pretend. A person is either a pathological liar, or they are not. A person either has a long history or racism, or they do not. A person is either a misogynist, or they are not. A person is either thoughtful and erudite with a long history of civil service, or they are a ignorant bully driven only by self-interest. I can go on, but I doubt this is news to you or something you really want to discuss since you so obviously choose to be coy about it.
You understand me just fine. I have no idea why you felt it was necessary to drag BC into this conversation. It’s an intentional distraction as far as I’m concerned, aimed at avoiding having to address Trump’s long list of irredeemable character flaws.
But here’s why I think the two unjustified accusations played out very differently on the big stage: Clinton was a well-known, national figure, and the criminal accusation was at least somewhat straightforward. “She put classified mail on a home server.” Untrue, but easy to understand, and everyone knew who she was and there was already a trust issue insofar as her image went, so the false accusation was palatable to people who were unwilling to think too deeply about it.
In contrast, Arpaio is well-known to political junkies, but doesn’t have near the national name recognition that Clinton does. And while the accusation that gave rise to his contempt of court charges are easy to understand, the accusation of murder is not. No one alleged that Sheriff Joe took a nightstick and beat anyone to death. The allegation is much more attenuated: as sheriff, he ran a jail, and his staff was negligent in ways that may have contributed to deaths, and therefore he has some moral responsibility for those deaths. But that’s not a criminal accusation. Even if we accept as true the basic accusations against him, we haven’t proved a criminal charge of murder.
So you’re right: the bandwagon rolled on Clinton’s supposed criminality in a way that it did not on Arpaio’s. But there were reasons for that to happen.
“If I don’t already know it it’s not worth knowing!”
Johnson was the “killed by a robot” alleged shooter in Dallas last year, suspected by pulling the trigger in an ambush murder of five police officers. He was cornered and killed when police sent in a remote bomb disposal unit with explosives in to him and then detonated the explosive.
Tru dat. What Madison was saying, that is nowhere in the Constitution, was that impeachment for abuse of the pardon power would be an appropriate use of impeachment.
No, if he hasn’t already been brought up in this context, and his actions are more reprehensible than those already mentioned, then bringing his name in at this point in the debate is likely to be a category error, an attempt to win an argument by pulling a bullshit rabbit out of a hat.
Which is clearly the case. This has nothing to do with ‘the left’ in general, let alone the Antifa or Black Lives Matter in particular.
We all know why you say this: because you expect Trump will do many other unconscionable things in the next few weeks and this one will just be thrown on the pile.
e.g. Why did we stop talking about the appalling and baseless accusation of Obama (and the UK government) wiretapping Trump? Because he was vindicated?
You may not be aware that the “law presiding over the guilty parties” in the case of military executions requires official authorization from the President for the execution to be actually carried out.
George W. Bush and Obama both refused to authorize the execution of Loving, who was on death row during Bush’s Presidency. Do you consider that Bush also did the equivalent of “pardoning” Loving?
While obviously Arpaio doesn’t have the national name recognition that a former First Lady, Secretary of State and Presidential candidate does he is hardly an obscure figure, and I would be willing to go so far as to assert that there is a heavy overlap between those who were calling for Clinton to be locked up and those who support Arpaio’s actions. The issue is less one of visibility and more to do with whose ox is being gored.
You are grossly understating his culpability in this matter. The issue is not merely that “his staff was negligent” in a jail he ran, given that Arpaio himself described Tent City as “a concentration camp” and temperatures in the tents ran as high as 150 degrees F. His jails were twice found to be violating the constitutional rights of their inmates and were the subject of over 2000 prison-conditions lawsuits, more than 50 times that of New York City, Los Angeles, Houston and Chicago combined, with over $50 million paid out and an additional $43 million paid out to family members of inmates who died or were injured in custody, sometimes due to torture or brutal beatings. And all the while Arpaio waged war against his critics, frequently abusing the power of his office to arrest or harass them.
So no, Joe Arpaio never personally beat someone to death with his nightstick. But to characterize the issue as “his staff was negligent in ways that may have contributed to deaths” when Brian Crenshaw was effectively beaten to death by prison staff is beyond understatement.
This is technically true. We have not proved a criminal charge of murder. We have, however, proved a long history of gross misconduct by him and his officers that has resulted in deaths and permanent injury, even outside of the issues of him harassing Hispanic people, defying the court system and abusing his power. I think that’s sufficient reason for people to “be upset”.
Yes. The law is non-partisan. I feel the pardon power should be reserved only for special circumstances, or extreme cases. IE where there is reasonable doubt to the imprisoned’s guilt, or wherein new evidence shows a prisoner was actually innocent, or other such cases. The case of Richard Nixon would fall into an extreme case. The pardon power should be used very rarely, and with due consideration. It should not be used wantonly on exit (or in office) to render political favors.
Look, in the real world, I actually have a degree in poli sci with a minor in sociology, certification as a paralegal and retired from being a forensic accountant. I actually am very concerned that our cheeto-in-chief is doing serious damage to the US. He seems to be systematically alienating every foreign government that actually seemed to be on good terms with us, is screwing with the military, is screwing with our environment and is now screwing with our judiciary. Having said that, our government is extremely durable, it takes a hell of a lot to actually do serious damage [it was designed to shift seated representatives every few years, and thusly it takes a lot to actually do something to fuck things up] But Asshole is giving it his best shot. And I have noticed this pattern, but you will also notice that I don’t normally discuss my political leanings, and for me to consider posting it is actually pretty concerning to me.
That’s not at all why I said it. I said it because I think in a few weeks people will have calmed down a bit and realized this isn’t even close to “the end of our system of government as we know it”, but since you’ve got an alternative view, let me ask you this: do you think this is the worst thing Trump has done since taking office? Top 3? Top 5? Top 10?
He is neither a gnat nor an irrelevant category. We were discussing, in your words “the left’s actions expressing upset with what cops do”. I had given some examples and you said “that catalogue of wrongs is trivial compared to the abuses that Joe Arpaio …” and “… I’m comparing the actions of just one cop with your catalogue of the left’s actions. Quite a difference in scale, huh? On a scale from 0 to 10, with Arpaio being a 10, the lefties in question come in at about 0.01.” So I’ll ask again: where does Micah fit in on your scale?
Also, compare the fact that “he’s an old man and shouldn’t go to jail” (for 6 months) excuse with the fact he’s considering running next year for a Senate position that has a 6 year term. If he’s too old to be locked up, he’s too old to represent Arizona for 6 years.
It’s good you say “since taking office” as that cuts things down a bit. It takes birther and collusion off the table for starters.
Obviously it’s going to depend on what criteria we judge “worst”: risk of causing social unrest? How many americans are likely to be materially worse off? Harm it causes to the planet? Wasting time and money on a lie? How many people it offends? How much ignorance it spreads about an important issue? Whether it seems to show malicious intent? etc etc
Bearing all this in mind, IMHO Arpaio’s pardon might still just squeeze into the top 10 in position 9 or 10. Stay tuned for the next round of incompetence, spite or willful ignorance that might drop Arpaio out!
IYHO. We’re talking about a guy who wasn’t affiliated with any group, but the groups he followed on Facebook were recognized by the SPLC as hate groups that nobody like Antifa or BLM would give the time of day to.
So, how about that Dylann Roof? Guess he was just a conservative protester.