Apparently Joe Arpaio was innocent of the charges - after all

[grasping the after wind]

Liberals with their judges and Laws are destroying America. Where are the “good people” and “Second Amendment People” to make America great again?

Conservatives are simply scoff laws not like "good people" and "Gun Cntrol Advocates" that run sanctuary cities.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

But they aren't supposed to care about the law when it comes to being here illegally.

No, they're supposed to care about all of the laws. The fact that someone is in the country illegally does not remove their basic human rights. Moreover, racial profiling and arresting people who are in the country legally simply based on the color of their skin violates the Constitution, which the sheriff swore to uphold. Then there's the fact that the sheriff pursued immigration crime to the detriment of other investigations within his jurisdiction. Is immigration crime worse than sexual and violent crimes? Because Sheriff Joe failed to investigate a lot of those properly over the years while he was being "tough on immigration."

 

[TLK Valentine]

But they aren't supposed to care about the law when it comes to being here illegally.

Again, why did Joe limit himself to Arizona?

 

[tulc]

But they aren't supposed to care about the law when it comes to being here illegally.

if this case was about illegal immigration you might have a point, unfortunately for Mr Arpaio it didn't.
tulc(is going to need some more coffee soon)

 

[grasping the after wind]

if this case was about illegal immigration you might have a point, unfortunately for Mr Arpaio it didn't.
tulc(is going to need some more coffee soon)

Why unfortunately for Arpaio? He seems to be doing ok. IMO The case was all about illegal immigration and a judge that was in favor of it looking to find a way to keep a sheriff from being an obstacle to it.

 

[tulc]

Why unfortunately for Arpaio?

Because he apparently thought he was above the law, and he wasn't. That's always a little shocking for people like Mr Arpaio.

He seems to be doing ok. IMO The case was all about illegal immigration and a judge that was in favor of it looking to find a way to keep a sheriff from being an obstacle to it.

It doesn't really matter what you or I (or Mr Arpaio for that matter) thought the case was about. He lost.
tulc(wonders when he's going to become part of President Trumps administration?)

 

[Goonie]

Why unfortunately for Arpaio? He seems to be doing ok. IMO The case was all about illegal immigration and a judge that was in favor of it looking to find a way to keep a sheriff from being an obstacle to it.

False. The Judge was not in favour of illegal immigration. In the first case he ruled you cannot stop people based solely on the colour of their skin. In the second when Sheriff Arpaio refused to obey the court order he was found guilty of contempt.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Because he apparently thought he was above the law, and he wasn't. That's always a little shocking for people like Mr Arpaio.


It doesn't really matter what you or I (or Mr Arpaio for that matter) thought the case was about. He lost.
tulc(wonders when he's going to become part of President Trumps administration?)

Perhaps both Sheriff Joe and Sheriff Dave of Milwaukee both have a future in Trumps Yuge Administration.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Because he apparently thought he was above the law, and he wasn't. That's always a little shocking for people like Mr Arpaio.


It doesn't really matter what you or I (or Mr Arpaio for that matter) thought the case was about. He lost.
tulc(wonders when he's going to become part of President Trumps administration?)

Perhaps he thought since other local government officials throughout the land feel they are above the law and can advertise it with pride without consequence that no one would single him out as the only one to be held to account for not complying? Trump just made sure he did not receive more punishment than all those other government lawbreakers.

 

[cow451]

Because he apparently thought he was above the law, and he wasn't. That's always a little shocking for people like Mr Arpaio.


It doesn't really matter what you or I (or Mr Arpaio for that matter) thought the case was about. He lost.
tulc(wonders when he's going to become part of President Trumps administration?)

cow451 wonders what position tulc would want in the Trump administration.

 

[grasping the after wind]

False. The Judge was not in favour of illegal immigration. In the first case he ruled you cannot stop people based solely on the colour of their skin. In the second when Sheriff Arpaio refused to obey the court order he was found guilty of contempt.

I would have to be convinced that my opinion of the judge's motivation was false by something more substantive than a recap of his rulings. If my opinion is correct then his rulings would read exactly the same as if my opinion was incorrect. He is hardly likely to say "I favor illegal immigration and so I'm trying to get the sheriff to stop standing in the way" .If I am correct in my ipinion then He would need aa ruling that sounded at least somewhat legitimate would he not?

 

[AirPo]

cow451 wonders what position tulc would want in the Trump administration.

Revolving door operator?

 

[grasping the after wind]

cow451 wonders what position tulc would want in the Trump administration.

Ambassador to Columbia?

 

[Aryeh Jay]

cow451 wonders what position tulc would want in the Trump administration.

Something to do with Coffee.

 

[cow451]

Something to do with Coffee.

Ambassador to Hawaii (Trump doesn't know it's a state) Kona coffee must be protected.

 

[cow451]

Revolving door operator?

Someone needs to start a poll thread.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I would have to be convinced that my opinion of the judge's motivation was false by something more substantive than a recap of his rulings. If my opinion is correct then his rulings would read exactly the same as if my opinion was incorrect. He is hardly likely to say "I favor illegal immigration and so I'm trying to get the sheriff to stop standing in the way" .If I am correct in my ipinion then He would need aa ruling that sounded at least somewhat legitimate would he not?

Fair enough, but the fact is that racial profiling (aka stopping/arresting people simply because they look Mexican) violates the Constitution. A judge found that Arpaio was doing this and ordered him to stop. He didn't, and so was found guilty of contempt of court by a second judge. There is nothing in any of this to indicate that the judge had an ulterior motive - your statement that this is what his ruling would sound like if he was trying to show favor to illegal immigration is the equivalent of saying "Well that's exactly what a witch would say!" after someone denies being a witch.

Unless you can show actual, concrete, evidence that the judge who ordered Arpaio to stop racial profiling favors illegal immigration, I'm going to assume that he was simply doing his job and upholding the Constitution.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Fair enough, but the fact is that racial profiling (aka stopping/arresting people simply because they look Mexican) violates the Constitution. A judge found that Arpaio was doing this and ordered him to stop. He didn't, and so was found guilty of contempt of court by a second judge. There is nothing in any of this to indicate that the judge had an ulterior motive - your statement that this is what his ruling would sound like if he was trying to show favor to illegal immigration is the equivalent of saying "Well that's exactly what a witch would say!" after someone denies being a witch.

Unless you can show actual, concrete, evidence that the judge who ordered Arpaio to stop racial profiling favors illegal immigration, I'm going to assume that he was simply doing his job and upholding the Constitution.

I have no problem with you assuming the opposite of what I assume. Diversity of opinion is a wonderful thing.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I have no problem with you assuming the opposite of what I assume. Diversity of opinion is a wonderful thing.

Diversity of opinion is indeed wonderful, but if you want anyone to take your opinions seriously, it helps to have evidence to back them up. I can point to plenty of evidence that racial profiling is against the Constitution, and that Arpaio was engaging in it, and that he defied a judge's order to stop doing it. I've yet to see any evidence that the judge who ordered him to stop in any way favored illegal immigration.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Diversity of opinion is indeed wonderful, but if you want anyone to take your opinions seriously, it helps to have evidence to back them up. I can point to plenty of evidence that racial profiling is against the Constitution, and that Arpaio was engaging in it, and that he defied a judge's order to stop doing it. I've yet to see any evidence that the judge who ordered him to stop in any way favored illegal immigration.

Well I would love to see the evidence that you could point to if you are in the pointing mood even though I haven't expressed an opposing opinion on those issues. I haven't given that my full attention so I haven't formed an opinion yet as to whether Arpaio's profiling was racially motivated or legitimate profiling using proper law enforcement techniques or whether the judge had proof that what Arpaio was doing actually constituted racially motivated profiling and therefore was a direct disobedience of the reling of that judge. If you can point to real evidence that backed up the judge's opinion in the case i would be happy to consider it. . As to the Constitution there is no doubt that the equal protection clause would rule out profiling that was racially motivated so I do not need any pointing in that direction as we concur on that.

Unfortunately, I must disagree that in order for one's opinions to be taken seriously one must provide some real evidence to back it up. There are just too many cases lately of people taking unsubstantiated rumors or conspiracy theories seriously for me to believe one needs evidence to be taken seriously. To be convincing to the skeptical perhaps but not to be taken seriously.