Look, the point of that passage is to make clear that constraining the Presidential pardon power is not the job of the courts. If the President throws his pardon weight around and Congress acquiesces in the throwing, there is no other remedy. The courts will not act as a SupraGovernmental check on all things unwise.
If Congress were faced with a Trump that “by successive pardons of constantly recurring contempts in particular litigation, might deprive a court of power to enforce its orders in a recalcitrant neighborhood,” and failed to impeach, then the answer is that the President can do it, and the only effective remedy is the voters. And if the voters sustain the Congress, which must face them every two years, then guess what? They disagree with us.
I agree with you. I don’t want the courts second-guessing pardons. And I’m sure the courts don’t want that job. I’m just disgusted by Trump, and thought it worth remarking that conduct that was once “improbable” is now actually quite conceivable. Every day is a new low. The remedy is the ballot box. Who’s with me?
The conduct that the court deemed improbable was “successive pardons of constantly recurring contempts in particular litigation”. Here we have one pardon, not “successive pardons of constantly recurring contempts”. I suppose it’s conceivable we get there, but it’s always been “conceivable”. We aren’t there yet. We haven’t reached the “improbable” situation the Court envisioned, and, my money is on it still being quite “improbable” that we do get there.
You have more faith in the current POTUS than I do. If Arpaio were still Sheriff, and he was ordered again next week to cut this crap out, do you honestly think Trump wouldn’t pardon him again?
He is not still Sheriff though. The voters intervened. That’s the point. IF that were to happen, it would then make sense to discuss it, and wring our hands about “how times have changed” and “No longer so “improbable.””. But we’re not there yet.
It’s true that Obama pushed the prior limits of the exercise of executive power.
But he didn’t do it in this particular way, and I’m not sure I agree that the two can be equated except in very general ways. Obama’s pushes were generally of the Executive Order variety: “Congress won’t act, so I’ll make things happen myself.” That’s not always ideal, to be sure, but it’s not comparable to this pardon, which really does seem to be calculated for its messaging effect instead of its substantive effect.
Aside from his “phone and pen” business, I was actually thinking of Obama’s claiming of executive privilege to thwart Congressional investigations. Also not a perfect analog to the Arpaio pardon, but it is more similarly along the lines of directly ‘breaking checks-and-balances’ stuff than the executive orders he signed.
Admittedly, I don’t think Obama was claiming executive privilege as an attempt to send a message to his supporters like what some of you are perceiving in Trump’s pardon, so that part of the comparison still wouldn’t fit.
Of course. Because I’m sure the last thing you’d want is an ultra-close election whose results were questioned due to potential illegal votes cast. Right?
Total hijack, but given recent polling that shows 2/3 of Republicans believe millions of votes were illegal cast despite a complete lack of evidence, and nearly half of Republicans believe that Trump won the popular vote despite this being a basic, verifiable fact, have you reflected at all on your “voter confidence” theory behind voter ID laws? Like, if it’s so easy for Trump to discredit an election (that he won, oddly) by spreading the dumbest of lies that can be debunked by even the laziest of debunkers, do you think that whatever confidence voter ID laws add to the party would even make a lick of difference? Or could voters be led to doubt, in frighteningly large numbers, election results even with those laws in place?
You’re sadly correct: many voters are not only ignorant of many of the key issues associated with the candidates for whom they cast ballots, but are also easily deceived about the facts associated with the election results, like “millions of illegal votes cast.”
But I’m in turn willing to dismiss those concerns because of their complete lack of factual predicate.
In contrast, the prospect of an ultra-close election, while concededly rare, is not unheard of. Florida in 2000, Washington state governor’s race in 2006, Indiana’s 8th in 1984 – these were all in our living memory and each was close enough that a mere 300 illegal votes could have produced a different result. When such an event happens, it’s not just the easily deceived in play: any reasonable observer should have concerns.
I haven’t had a car accident in 25 years. I still have insurance, because the slight cost and inconvenience serves to mitigate the catastrophic consequences that MIGHT happen. So, too, should we verify the identity of voters - it’s a slight cost and inconvenience and it serves to mitigate the major concerns that can arise in an ultra-close election.
What if the current sheriff, or a sheriff of a different county starts doing stuff that the courts find unconstitutional?
With as much rhetoric as trump has made about law and order, and his instructions to the police to “not be so nice”, I can see cases of civil rights violations popping up on a regular basis in this climate.
If there are various "arpaia"s found in contempt of court for the same reasons, do you not think that trump will be pardoning them?
That’s the part that it seems that even you should get stuck on defending him. He pardoned a man who showed no remorse and would happily continue to perform the crime of which he was convicted, and that crime is violating the civil rights of the people in his jurisdiction.
This sends a message to law enforcement that civil rights mean nothing, and that the police may get away with any behavior in which they feel like engaging.
Arpaio is despicable, and what he did and condoned are equally so. As is the pardon, and Trump himself. A pair of deplorable, despicable, simply awful human beings.
No hyperbole, that’s just the kind of “men” they are.
Perhaps the state courts could be the instruments of compliance. The President has no power whatsoever to pardon a contempt of court conviction from a state court.
And you could hold the view that Arpaio and Trump are despicable without thinking that the pardon represents, to use the words found in the OP, “the end of our system of government as we know it”. Is that the position you find yourself in?
I’ll probably be more interested in these hypotheticals if they materialize. Anyways, I try to answer direct questions so: no, I doubt the current Maricopa County Sheriff would get a pardon from Trump if he continued in Arpaio’s ways. He’s not going to either, I strongly suspect, so it’s not a concern either way. Do you know of another Sheriff who has been held in contempt for telling a federal judge to get bent? One that is in danger of it? AFAIK, the Arpaio situation was rather unique and not something that’s widespread or common, or very likely to become widespread or common.
I’m skeptical that run-of-the-mill cops got that message from this pardon. Do you think, for example, Patrolman Steve now thinks “Hey, Trump pardoned Arpaio, so if I rape this hot chick he’ll pardon me too”? I don’t.