Apparently Joe Arpaio was innocent of the charges - after all

[wing2000]

The absolute lack of appreciation and respect for the protections accorded by our Constitution is troublesome to say the least.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The absolute lack of appreciation and respect for the protections accorded by our Constitution is troublesome to say the least.

Remember, boys and girls -- our president only supports "law and order" until someone he likes ends up on the wrong side of it.

 

[BobRyan]

Remember, boys and girls -- our president only supports "law and order" .

True. And so also Arpaio -- the problem is "the left does not"


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."


Many/most American citizens (even voters) believe that taking the Sheriff's Oath of Office means that the Sheriff is sworn by an oath - to uphold the Law. To carry out orders "I can lawfully execute" as stated in that oath.

Presumably Arpaio took such an oath of office.

Many have argued that a Sheriff that is condemned because he chooses to uphold the laws in America - violates Constitutional intent and the written law of the land.

A pardon for someone who chose the LAW over leftism is what is being discussed.

==== as opposed to pardon members of domestic terrorist groups like 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...

The absolute lack of appreciation and respect for the protections accorded by our Constitution is troublesome to say the least.

 

[szechuan]

True. And so also Arpaio -- the problem is "the left does not"


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."


Many/most American citizens (even voters) believe that taking the Sheriff's Oath of Office means that the Sheriff is sworn by an oath - to uphold the Law. To carry out orders "I can lawfully execute" as stated in that oath.

Presumably Arpaio took such an oath of office.

Many have argued that a Sheriff that is condemned because he chooses to uphold the laws in America - violates Constitutional intent and the written law of the land.

A pardon for someone who chose the LAW over leftism is what is being discussed.

==== as opposed to pardon members of domestic terrorist groups like FALN

way to ignore everybody's rebuttal and repeat your argument over like it makes any difference.

 

[BobRyan]

What law did the judge 'invent'?

The "new one" invented was the one that says it is now illegal in Arizona to uphold the law passed by congress regarding immigration into the United States.

 

[Goonie]

True. And so also Arpaio -- the problem is "the left does not"

Wow! Sorry but it is trump and the Sheriff who have signalled their absolute disdain for law and order. Saying you support law and order whilst refusing to obey the rulings of judges irrefutably demonstrates this.

 

[BobRyan]

way to ignore everybody's rebuttal and repeat your argument .

Thanks .. the facts do not change "with added emotion"

 

[szechuan]

The "new one" invented was the one that says it is now illegal in Arizona to uphold the law passed by congress regarding immigration into the United States.

It's not illegal to uphold laws by congress, it's illegal to conduct them in the manner Arpaio did.

 

[Goonie]

The "new one" invented was the one that says it is now illegal in Arizona to uphold the law passed by congress regarding immigration into the United States.

No such law exists, and no judge in existence has invented it. Please making up lies, thanks,

 

[szechuan]

Thanks .. the facts do not change "with added emotion"

Your facts have already been proven wrong by the rebuttals.

 

[BobRyan]

Wow! Sorry but it is trump and the Sheriff who have signalled their absolute disdain for law and order. .

Not in "real life" -- in real life they are upholding the law of the land passed by congress on the issue of immigration.

Both sides admit to this glaringly obvious detail. Emotion does not change fact.

 

[szechuan]

Not in "real life" -- in real life they are upholding the law of the land passed by congress on the issue of immigration.

Both sides admit to this glaringly obvious detail. Emotion does not change fact.

How's saying what he said about Emotion?
Again you're ignoring how there are rules with capturing Illegal Immigrants.

Again, it's illegal to conduct them in the manner Arpaio did

 

[Goonie]

Not in "real life" -- in real life they are upholding the law of the land passed by congress on the issue of immigration.

Both sides admit to this glaringly obvious detail. Emotion does not change fact.

the fact that the sheriff was found guilty of breaking the law. Sorry but once again your hatred and loathing of law and order, and the rule of law is apparent.

 

[BobRyan]

No such law exists, and no judge in existence has invented it. Please making up lies, thanks,

Again .. emotionalism does not change fact.

Three days before Donald Trump pardoned Joe Arpaio, he stated that the former Maricopa County, Arizona, sheriff was "convicted for doing his job." -- Upholding existing law passed by congress.

The leftist roadblock against Arpaio was that Arpaio would be guilty of upholding federal immigration law.

IN this case - a federal judge told him to cut it out, -- that is one lone member of the federal judiciary trying to smack State Law enforcement for failure to ignore federal law.

 

[BobRyan]

the fact that the sheriff was found guilty of breaking the law .

What law? the new one?? Is there a law that requires that state law enforcement ignore federal law???

Remember - emotion does not change fact.

Here is "another" example of federal law --

"Aircraft and Motor Vehicle Crimes – Aircraft and motor vehicle crimes include destruction of the vehicles and operating these vehicles under impairment. Threats, drive by shootings, or interference with air traffic signals are included under this heading."

Are you "certain" that you want to jump off the leftist cliff of demanding that state law enforcement IGNORE federal crimes??? or is "just for certain federal crimes" that you want state law enforcement to ignore the law???

 

[szechuan]

Three days before Donald Trump pardoned Joe Arpaio, he stated that the former Maricopa County, Arizona, sheriff was "convicted for doing his job." -- Upholding existing law passed by congress.

Doing his Job in an Illegal Manner, that isn't emotionalism that is fact.

The leftist roadblock against Arpaio was that Arpaio would be guilty of upholding federal immigration law.

It's not a Leftist Roadblock, there are states that capture and detain Illegals all the time LEGALLY.

IN this case - a federal judge told him to cut it out, -- that is the federal judiciary trying to smack State Law enforcement for failure to ignore federal law.

Federal Law has always taken precedence over state.

 

[Goonie]

What law? the new one?? Is there a law that requires that state law enforcement ignore federal law???

Remember - emotion does not change fact.

The question is not ignoring federal law, but how one enforces it. it was his tactics that fell foal of the law! As I have said if the police suddenly decided to shoot all suspect shoplifters would that be lawful?

Please take a breath and think.

 

[szechuan]

What law? the new one?? Is there a law that requires that state law enforcement ignore federal law???

According to you there is a Law that makes it Legal to Ignore Federal ones somehow.
But it's not really about that, it's about How they enforce the Law.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Again .. emotionalism does not change fact.

Three days before Donald Trump pardoned Joe Arpaio, he stated that the former Maricopa County, Arizona, sheriff was "convicted for doing his job." -- Upholding existing law passed by congress.

The leftist roadblock against Arpaio was that Arpaio would be guilty of upholding federal immigration law.

IN this case - a federal judge told him to cut it out, -- that is one lone member of the federal judiciary trying to smack State Law enforcement for failure to ignore federal law.

It's not the job of local law enforcement to enforce federal laws. That's what federal immigration law enforcement agencies like ICE, and INS are for.

 

[Goonie]

According to you there is a Law that makes it Legal to Ignore Federal ones somehow.
But it's not really about that, it's about How they enforce the Law.

Indeed, and that is what this judgement is all about, the enforcement of a law, and who's responsible for enforcing it.