# Is Trump going to Phoonix to pardon Joe Arpaio? **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [August 22, 2017, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-going-to-phoonix-to-pardon-joe-arpaio/794376 "2017-08-22T16:21:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![ataraxy22](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ataraxy22/32/307_2.png) [@ataraxy22](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ataraxy22)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2017, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-going-to-phoonix-to-pardon-joe-arpaio/794376/81 "2017-08-26T03:44:03Z")
I am disgusted beyond words. ---
**Author:** ![ataraxy22](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ataraxy22/32/307_2.png) [@ataraxy22](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ataraxy22)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2017, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-going-to-phoonix-to-pardon-joe-arpaio/794376/82 "2017-08-26T03:45:03Z")
When does evil get its comeuppance? When? ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2017, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-going-to-phoonix-to-pardon-joe-arpaio/794376/83 "2017-08-26T16:17:30Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > The constitution says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” There isn’t an asterix for “yelling fire in a crowded theater” or “commercial speech”. > > I think the idea is nutty for reasons of the existing jurisprudence (or lack thereof) on the subject. But just because the plain text of the Constitution doesn’t say something doesn’t mean that “something” can’t be read into it. Apples and oranges. Those rulings are about when the rights of one interfere with the rights of others. We are not talking about individual rights here we are talking about one of the checks and balances written into the constitution. Contempt of court is a crime written in federal code. It’s not a constitutional power. The president can pardon for any violation of federal code. I don’t see any loopholes there. ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2017, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-going-to-phoonix-to-pardon-joe-arpaio/794376/84 "2017-08-26T17:48:09Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > There isn’t an asterix for “yelling fire in a crowded theater” or “commercial speech”. > [@Loach](#): > > There isn’t an asterix for contempt. What the f\*\*\* is an asterix? ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2017, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-going-to-phoonix-to-pardon-joe-arpaio/794376/85 "2017-08-26T17:57:28Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > What the f\*\*\* is an asterix? A French cartoon character. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2017, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-going-to-phoonix-to-pardon-joe-arpaio/794376/86 "2017-08-26T18:13:33Z")
> [@suranyi](#): > > A French cartoon character. No it’s a dominatrix with a specialty. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2017, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-going-to-phoonix-to-pardon-joe-arpaio/794376/87 "2017-08-26T19:01:38Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > Apples and oranges. Those rulings are about when the rights of one interfere with the rights of others. We are not talking about individual rights here we are talking about one of the checks and balances written into the constitution. Contempt of court is a crime written in federal code. It’s not a constitutional power. The president can pardon for any violation of federal code. I don’t see any loopholes there. Huh? You don’t have a right to not be exposed to “bad commercial speech”. The courts have decided, contrary to the plain text of the constitution, that the legislature has the power to regulate commercial speech. ---
**Author:** ![digs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/digs/32/14889_2.png) [@digs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/digs)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2017, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-going-to-phoonix-to-pardon-joe-arpaio/794376/88 "2017-08-26T21:56:21Z")
Re: title of thread… Is anyone else singing\* “ **By the time I get to Phoonix…** ”?\* BTW, I’m still looking for a good explanation of why Arpaio would still care about “taking the 5th” after he’s pardoned (it’s referenced in the Elections and Pit threads). ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2017, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-going-to-phoonix-to-pardon-joe-arpaio/794376/89 "2017-08-26T23:36:47Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > Is a pardon for a misdemeanor considered a first? > > Arpaio is out of office and that’s a good thing. The voters finally saw him for what he really is. What is he really, in your opinion? Because you spent three or four posts on the first page of this thread kissing his ass. Why, if he was just following immigration law and doing is his job, as you said on the first page of this thread, is it a good thing that he’s out of office? You can’t even keep your own damn arguments straight. ---
**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2017, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-going-to-phoonix-to-pardon-joe-arpaio/794376/90 "2017-08-27T00:38:39Z")
> [@Senegoid](#): > > Is Arizona in flames yet? No, but mere hours after the decision, Texas was engulfed in storms, indicating God’s displeasure at this decision! ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2017, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-going-to-phoonix-to-pardon-joe-arpaio/794376/91 "2017-08-27T02:21:40Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > The argument that this pardon was illegal seems like it was invented within the last month or so. It’s like the birthers who ultimately decided that “natural born citizen” means that both parents must have been born in the USA. Nobody thought that before 2008, and I suspect that nobody thought that criminal contempt couldn’t be pardoned before 2017. The _motivation_ is more pure, but the reasoning is not. Why does that matter? It’s not about what people thought. It’s about what the law actually is. Is there an actual legal argument that does this, and is there enough political will in the courts to pursue this avenue? Is there someone who could sue and have standing over this? All legal arguments are novel at some point. It seems to me that their merit is what is more important than why they were created. All the law is is seeing who can make the best arguments. The whole point is try to twist it to get the outcome you want. That’s what both prosecutors and defense attorneys do. It is why everyone has discretion, so you can avoid enforcing the law if you don’t think it’s worth it. I cannot see how the law is some definite thing–hence why I try to avoid deferring to it. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2017, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-going-to-phoonix-to-pardon-joe-arpaio/794376/92 "2017-08-27T02:31:20Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > I doubt we’ll see any more pardons for contempt of court. > > The average joe better not hold their breath waiting for their governor or the President to issue a pardon. They are very rare. For Trump, “rare” has no meaning. He might do it a hundred times more. Daily, if need be. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2017, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-going-to-phoonix-to-pardon-joe-arpaio/794376/93 "2017-08-27T03:23:14Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > I know I flounced out of this thread, but here’s the article: > > [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/opinion/trump-arpaio-pardon-arizona-sheriff.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/opinion/trump-arpaio-pardon-arizona-sheriff.html) > > I think the idea is that contempt is not like other crimes. Other laws are created by the legislature and decided upon by the judicial. Contempt is the judiciary’s own thing, and you can be jailed for it without even having a trial (not the case here, of course, since there was a trial). I thought it was an interesting article. > > Anyway, I’m not a law-talking guy, so I’m going to re-flounce. From your link: > [@](#): > > I admit that this is a novel theory. There’s no Supreme Court decision, at least that I know of, that deals specifically with the extent to which the president may employ his pardon power in this way. But any attempt at researching the issue should have alerted the writer to the Supreme Court’s decision in _Ex Parte Grossman_, 267 US 87 (1925), which addressed the President’s pardon power as to a contempt conviction. As the Court explained: > [@](#): > > The argument for the respondent is that the President’s power extends only to offenses against the United States and a contempt of Court is not such an offense, that offenses against the United States are not common law offenses but can only be created by legislative act, that the President’s pardoning power is more limited than that of the King of England at common law, which was a broad prerogative and included contempts against his courts chiefly because the judges thereof were his agents and acted in his name; that the context of the Constitution shows that the word “offences” is used in that instrument only to include crimes and misdemeanors triable by jury and not contempts of the dignity and authority of the federal courts, and that to construe the pardon clause to include contempts of court would be to violate the fundamental principle of the Constitution in the division of powers between the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches, and to take from the federal courts their independence and the essential means of protecting their dignity and authority. The Court rejected each of those assertions, concluding that the President’s pardon was fully effective. > [@](#): > > Nothing in the ordinary meaning of the words “offences against the United States” excludes criminal contempts. That which violates the dignity and authority of federal courts such as an intentional effort to defeat their decrees justifying punishment violates a law of the United States (In re Neagle, 135 U.S. 1, 59, et seq.), and so must be an offense against the United States. Moreover, this Court has held that the general statute of limitation which forbids prosecutions “for any offense unless instituted within three years next after such offense shall have been committed,” applies to criminal contempts. > . > . > . > It goes without saying that nowhere is there a more earnest will to maintain the independence of federal courts and the preservation of every legitimate safeguard of their effectiveness afforded by the Constitution than in this Court. But the qualified independence which they fortunately enjoy is not likely to be permanently strengthened by ignoring precedent and practice and minimizing the importance of the coordinating checks and balances of the Constitution. > > The rule is made absolute and the petitioner is discharged. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2017, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-going-to-phoonix-to-pardon-joe-arpaio/794376/94 "2017-08-27T03:26:50Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > If Flynn or Manafort decide not to turn over files or to testify and get cited for contempt, you don’t think they’ll be pardoned? What about if his son or Kushner end up defying the court? Interestingly, the _Grossman_ Court considered such an outcome: > [@](#): > > If it be said that the President, by successive pardons of constantly recurring contempts in particular litigation, might deprive a court of power to enforce its orders in a recalcitrant neighborhood, it is enough to observe that such a course is so improbable as to furnish but little basis for argument. Exceptional cases like this, if to be imagined at all, would suggest a resort to impeachment rather than to a narrow and strained construction of the general powers of the President. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2017, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-going-to-phoonix-to-pardon-joe-arpaio/794376/95 "2017-08-27T04:33:50Z")
Which of course means that Trump in the here and now can do it without consequence. Hopefully, it’s worth it. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2017, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-going-to-phoonix-to-pardon-joe-arpaio/794376/96 "2017-08-27T12:10:59Z")
**Bricker** , so you’re saying that you agree with the pardon? 😃 I’m kidding, of course. Thank you very much for posting that case history. That’s some piss-poor research on the part of the op-ed writer. I think I agree with (but could be argued out of) the concept that pardons _shouldn’t_ be allowed for contempt charges, since that really could lead to a situation where the executive has too much power over the judiciary, but it’s clear that the judiciary has considered this already and came to the opposite conclusion, or at least decided that the Constitution is clear on the matter. I think there are many parts of the Constitution that basically assume that all parties are working in good faith. That’s why it’s so short. Thanks again for your analysis. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2017, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-going-to-phoonix-to-pardon-joe-arpaio/794376/97 "2017-08-27T20:10:03Z")
> [@digs](#): > > Re: title of thread… Is anyone else singing\* “ **By the time I get to Phoonix…** ”?\* Yes, yes I am, every time I see it. ---
**Author:** ![stillownedbysetters](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/41988e/32.png) [@stillownedbysetters](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stillownedbysetters)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2017, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-going-to-phoonix-to-pardon-joe-arpaio/794376/98 "2017-08-28T03:04:42Z")
> [@digs](#): > > Re: title of thread… Is anyone else singing\* “ **By the time I get to Phoonix…** ”?\* > > BTW, I’m still looking for a good explanation of why Arpaio would still care about “taking the 5th” after he’s pardoned (it’s referenced in the Elections and Pit threads). See what Trump has done to this group? It took 88 responses before anyone pointed out the rather humorous typo in the title. Y’all are getting far too serious. I blame Trump. For pretty much everything. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2017, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-going-to-phoonix-to-pardon-joe-arpaio/794376/99 "2017-08-28T03:37:43Z")
> [@stillownedbysetters](#): > > See what Trump has done to this group? It took 88 responses before anyone pointed out the rather humorous typo in the title. Y’all are getting far too serious. I blame Trump. For pretty much everything. 😃 And it’s rather disturbing that the post number was 88. ---
**Author:** ![gigi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a587f6/32.png) [@gigi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gigi)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2017, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-going-to-phoonix-to-pardon-joe-arpaio/794376/100 "2017-08-29T19:22:51Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > And it’s rather disturbing that the post number was 88. Ebony and ivory Live together in perfect harmony Side by side on my piano keyboard Oh lord, why don’t we? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-going-to-phoonix-to-pardon-joe-arpaio/794376.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-going-to-phoonix-to-pardon-joe-arpaio/794376.md?page=6)