Keep in mind that my position is: I would have supported a presidential commutation of any jail time, but did not support a pardon, because the commutation would have eliminated the jail time if that were truly the goal.
Now, with that in mind, I’d point out that the statement you’ve offered up as a rule (“If he’s too old to be locked up, he’s too old to represent Arizona for 6 years”) is not actually any kind of a rule at all. It’s just something in your head. Jail time is more onerous than Capitol Hill time. There’s really not a parallel between the two.
I think Arpaio would be a horrid choice for US Senate, so don’t assume that “You have a bad argument against X,” means “I favor X.” Among the thousands of reasons Arpaio would be an awful choice to represent Arizona in the Senate, I don’t agree that we find “Because he’s too old to be sent to jail.” Senators are permitted to be frail.
Do you agree that Micah Xavier Johnson’s politics lie somewhere on the left side of the political spectrum of modern American politics?
Do you agree that his actions were “expressing upset with what cops do”?
What does Dylan Roof have to do with a discussion about “the left’s actions expressing upset with what cops do”? I’m failing to see any connection or relevance here.
So, you’re happy that he won’t serve time for his crimes against the constitution, but you don’t think he should have had to admit his guilt by accepting the pardon?
That’s a disappointing non-answer. Look, we were discussing why the left doesn’t like cops, or at least not as much as the right. I brought up an example of a murderous asshole on the left who targeted cops. Certainly there are other murderous assholes on both sides of the political spectrum, but how the hell do they factor into a discussion about why the Left has the reputation as being less supportive of law enforcement than the Right? What good is bringing up Dylan Roof or that murderous asshole that shot Steve Scalise in that discussion?
I don’t completely disagree with you. But I was struck by the contrast that he’s such an old man, meaning he doesn’t need to be punished or he shouldn’t have to endure it, and the fact he apparently thinks he’s not too old to begin a 6 year job across the country. I just think (yes, not a rule, just me) that if he’s old enough to run a campaign and take a job with a six year commitment, he’s not to old to serve his time. Yes, Senators are permitted to be frail. Hell, it’s probably the easiest job in government. You don’t actually have to do anything. Let’s just agree he wold be “an awful choice” for many reasons.
If a President approves of behavior when he pardons someone, then you would agree that Obama approves of bank fraud, counterfeiting, and smuggling cocaine.
That’s the point I don’t see - how does abiding by the Constitution make one a tyrant?
I agree with this. He should have been sentenced before any pardon was even considered. And if it was given because of his age, it would be been less objectionable than getting a pardon just because the pardoner is just as racist as he is.
The bit about liberals being anti-police is silly. I’m as liberal as they come and I have no problem with criminals being arrested and put through the judicial system. What I object to is the chronic use of excessive force, disproportionately applied to minorities. It’s preposterous to think that cops should be allowed to exterminate anyone that they can claim with a straight face that made them in fear of their lives. Get a little slower on the trigger and stop with the racial profiling and I’ll be as pro-police as can be.
Does the Arpaio pardon threaten the future of democratic rule? Not by itself, but it is a huge step in that direction. It emboldens white supremacy and it makes potential witnesses in the Russia scandal less afraid of the consequences of not providing full and truthful testimony. It hints of future pardons to come, where people are tried and convicted and then escape facing the consequences of their acts based on their being in the “right” party. Democracy is much more fragile than a lot of people think.
The commutation of sentence that I said I favored – and which I only favored if he had been sentenced to jail in the first place, an outcome I and most legal observers found unlikely – would leave the judicial determination of his guilt in place. No outcome I favor would result in his ability to disavow his guilt, and I also spoke of my desire that he express remorse before any Presidential succor should occur.
I can’t believe this was unclear in my preceding posts here.
Imagine a few dozen people convicted of trying to overthrow the government and install Baron Trump as King. Imagine President Trump saying he supports their efforts. Then he pardons them before they’re sentenced. He certainly has that authority and is “abiding by the Constitution,” but you could see how such an effort might be criticized.
Here, Trump has embraced and endorsed the concept of disregarding a federal court order. (An idea he has great affection for, since he hates federal court orders, and judges in general.) He didn’t say “the man did something wrong, but has suffered enough,” or other such excuse. He thinks Arpaio is a hero who was “just doing his job.” That doesn’t *technically *make him a “tyrant,” but it’s a good insult that captures one aspect of his deplorable presidency.
My point is that some random murderous asshole doesn’t say a thing about The Left or The Right, regardless of whether the voices in their heads are leftist or rightist in nature.
If you start pulling in people from out of left (or right) field, taking turns saying, “this deranged killer is one of yours,” we ultimately get to ‘who was worse, Hitler or Stalin?’
I’m not going around saying that people like Dylann Roof say anything about the Republican Party; I’m willing to go by who they disown outright, who they cozy up to, and who they only step away from under pressure and with great reluctance. Roof was in the first category. So who on the left is only reluctantly disowning Johnson?
Apparently, the pardon will be challenged. An interesting argument. The judge has asked for briefing from the parties about the request to dismiss the case. I don’t predict she will invalidate the pardon, but I’ll watch with anticipation.
I could see that. But the case we are talking about is an old fart committing a misdemeanor by enforcing federal immigration policy when a judge didn’t want him to.
Sure, to the same extent that Obama embraced and endorsed the concept of smuggling cocaine, bank fraud, and counterfeiting, or Clinton endorsed income tax evasion.
I guess we can’t all be as well-informed as you are. :rolleyes: Spare us all your condescension.
How would you characterize doing his utmost to break checks-and-balances at every turn in order to get what he wants done?
Oh, I forget, he’s your guy, so it’s just the everyday cost of doing business. Until it’s a Democrat doing it, right? Classic party-over-country philosophy.
The article reports two distinct courses of action:
(1) Arpaio’s lawyers have asked the judge to vacate all opinions, judgments, and verdicts related to the criminal charge of which he was convicted, under the theory that he was given an unconditional pardon. But a pardon does not require such an action: it exists alongside such verdicts. The legal consequences of his crime are remitted; the fact of conviction is not wiped from the Earth. So in this first instance, what’s being challenged is not the pardon, but the motion by Arpaio to wipe clean all opinions, judgments, and verdicts that arose from his criminal trial and conviction.
(2) Some guys in a group called “Protect Democracy,” which the article describes as “an activist group seeking to thwart Trump’s violations of legal norms,” have sent a letter to the Public Integrity Section at the Department of Justice in which they argue that Trump’s pardon is a bad idea, and unconstitutional. But “Protect Democracy,” is not a party to the dispute and has no standing to challenge the pardon. Not only is their argument novel, they literally have no voice in the courtroom in this case.
That’s some seriously impressive logic-twisting rot thayer.
Trump has literally said that he approves of Arpaio’s actions. Apples to supernovae.
Using the Constitution to justify unconstitutional actions? That’s abiding by the Constitution? That might wash with an 8-year-old. Maybe. Or Trump’s base, who will accept any exonerating excuse, no matter how fantastic, definitely.