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.
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).
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.
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.
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 Court rejected each of those assertions, concluding that the President’s pardon was fully effective.
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.
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.
