Apparently Joe Arpaio was innocent of the charges - after all

[TLK Valentine]

The court did not declare it illegal to enforce immigration laws, that is an out and out falsehood, a demonstrated lie. They declared that the Sheriffs manner of enforcing them was illegal.

Yes, but it's okay to lie when you're going after Latinos -- Joe and Donald make the laws.

 

[Goonie]

Yes, but it's okay to lie when you're going after Latinos -- Joe and Donald make the laws.

As they go along.

 

[BobRyan]

Justice in "America" need not always be delivered via a jury.

Nor even an unbiased law-upholding Judge. There are apparently a great many options.

and under our legal system - also the option of Pardon.

 

[BobRyan]

“It’s not conservative to abuse the Constitution,

That is true. Our legal system and constitution does support trial by Jury AND the legal act of Pardon by an American President.

What is more - Laws are made by congress ... not the judicial branch. And so Judges cannot invent new laws making it 'illegal to uphold the Law".

All Americans know this - already.

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, but it's okay to lie when you're going after Latinos -- Joe and Donald make the laws.

Just not in real life - in real life Joe was upholding immigration law passed by Congress. ... not the leftist agenda that some much-prefer.

 

[BobRyan]

Some folks don't understand what America is and how she works.

Bingo

 

[BobRyan]

I guess we can do away with the notion that Trump supporters are "law and order" conservatives

Only if we are willing to turn a blind-eye to immigration laws passed by congress and upheld by law enforcement. (which of course some extreme leftist-agendas are perfectly happy to do).

(posted as someone who did not vote for Trump BTW)

 

[BobRyan]

The Sheriff was enforcing the Law passed by congress. That point does not change.

I love this quote from the OP

In fact, the United States Department of Justice admitted before trial that it is “unaware of facts” that would support “that Defendant and other MCSO officers detained plaintiffs on the basis of race.

================ as opposed to pardon members of FALN

from Why Did Obama Free This Terrorist?

On January 17, 2017, as one of the final acts of his presidency, Barack Obama commuted the sentence of 74-year-old Oscar Lopez Rivera, the Puerto Rican nationalist who had served 35 years of a 55-year conviction for the crime of “seditious conspiracy,” as well as attempted robbery, explosives and vehicle-theft charges. Thanks to Obama’s intercession, Lopez will be freed in May.
...
Most Americans may not have heard of Lopez, or the organization he helped lead, the Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional (FALN), a radical Marxist Puerto Rican independence group. With the focus of post-9/11 terrorism falling almost exclusively on Islamist radicals, the violent nationalists of yesteryear—Puerto Rican, Cuban, Croatian and Jewish—have faded into obscurity. But during the FALN’s explosive heyday under Lopez’s leadership, the group was anything but obscure. In fact, from 1974, when the group announced itself with its first bombings, to 1983, when arrests finally destroyed its membership base, the FALN was the most organized, active, well-trained and deadly domestic terror group based in the United States.

The FALN was responsible for over 130 bombings during this period...

 

[wing2000]

That is true. Our legal system and constitution does support trial by Jury AND the legal act of Pardon by an American President.

What is more - Laws are made by congress ... not the judicial branch. And so Judges cannot invent new laws making it 'illegal to uphold the Law".

All Americans know this - already.

Pop Quiz:
Which branch of government interprets the U.S. Constitution?

 

[wing2000]

The Sheriff was enforcing the Law passed by congress. That point does not change.

Which law authorizes local sheriffs to defy a federal court order?

 

[Goonie]

That is true. Our legal system and constitution does support trial by Jury AND the legal act of Pardon by an American President.

What is more - Laws are made by congress ... not the judicial branch. And so Judges cannot invent new laws making it 'illegal to uphold the Law".

All Americans know this - already.

Except that the Judge did not rule that it was 'illegal to uphold the law' that once again is a blatant falsehood. The sheriff broke the law in his manner of enforcing it.

For example shoplifting is illegal, would it be legal for sheriffs to shoot shoplifters on sight? After all it is their job to stop shoplifters. (The answer is no.)

 

[TLK Valentine]

Except that the Judge did not rule that it was 'illegal to uphold the law' that once again is a blatant falsehood. The sheriff broke the law in his manner of enforcing it.

For example shoplifting is illegal, would it be legal for sheriffs to shoot shoplifters on sight? After all it is their job to stop shoplifters. (The answer is no.)

Better specify that the shoplifters aren't Mexican -- Arpaio plays by his own rules...

 

[TLK Valentine]

As they go along.

But of course -- how are they suppose to know what laws they're going to need at any given moment?

 

[cow451]

Not by a jury of his peers. Rather he was trapped in a unhinged leftist corner , no jury, no attention whatsoever to the details, witnesses, evidence... no wonder we are all so happy to see him pardoned.

It is still "America" after all.

Waaaaaaaah.... get Sheriff Joe a pink Kleenex please.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Just not in real life - in real life Joe was upholding immigration law passed by Congress. ... not the leftist agenda that some much-prefer.

Then you wouldn't mind Joe raiding your home looking for drugs? After all, Congress passed drug laws as well.

Betcha he finds some...

 

[AirPo]

Bingo

Such as Arpaio supporters.

 

[AirPo]

That is true. Our legal system and constitution does support trial by Jury AND the legal act of Pardon by an American President.

What is more - Laws are made by congress ... not the judicial branch. And so Judges cannot invent new laws making it 'illegal to uphold the Law".

All Americans know this - already.

No, there are some Americans, Arpaio supporters, who have no clue how the constitution works. The evidence being their whining about how the constitution worked in reality.

 

[wing2000]

"....the decisions to convict Arpaio of civil and criminal contempt came from the judiciary — two U.S. District Court judges. Moreover, the threat of a criminal contempt charge loomed long before October 2016, as Arpaio was found in civil contempt early 2015.

“These were not Department of Justice charges. This was the court’s request that its order be vindicated with a trial. Whether it was the Department of Justice who was going to, at the judiciary’s invitation, prosecute this case or a lawyer here in Phoenix, a prosecution was going to take place,” said Paul Charlton, former U.S. attorney in Arizona under the Bush administration.

Moreover, there is criticism of the DOJ that it did not prosecute Arpaio as aggressively as it could have, Charlton said: “Judge Murray Snow’s order indicated that the court believed that Arpaio had perjured himself and obstructed justice. The single misdemeanor count prosecuted by the Obama DOJ was an exercise in restraint, and others would say far too timid given the facts.”


Analysis | Was former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio’s criminal conviction an Obama ‘political witch hunt’?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

That is true. Our legal system and constitution does support trial by Jury AND the legal act of Pardon by an American President.

What is more - Laws are made by congress ... not the judicial branch. And so Judges cannot invent new laws making it 'illegal to uphold the Law".

All Americans know this - already.

What law did the judge 'invent'?

 

[TLK Valentine]

"....the decisions to convict Arpaio of civil and criminal contempt came from the judiciary — two U.S. District Court judges. Moreover, the threat of a criminal contempt charge loomed long before October 2016, as Arpaio was found in civil contempt early 2015.

“These were not Department of Justice charges. This was the court’s request that its order be vindicated with a trial. Whether it was the Department of Justice who was going to, at the judiciary’s invitation, prosecute this case or a lawyer here in Phoenix, a prosecution was going to take place,” said Paul Charlton, former U.S. attorney in Arizona under the Bush administration.

Moreover, there is criticism of the DOJ that it did not prosecute Arpaio as aggressively as it could have, Charlton said: “Judge Murray Snow’s order indicated that the court believed that Arpaio had perjured himself and obstructed justice. The single misdemeanor count prosecuted by the Obama DOJ was an exercise in restraint, and others would say far too timid given the facts.”


Analysis | Was former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio’s criminal conviction an Obama ‘political witch hunt’?

Now, now -- Donald says it was, so it was. That's why he went out of his way to help out a friend...

Trump asked Sessions about closing case against Arpaio, an ally since ‘birtherism’