Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Case for Pardoning Sheriff Joe
Over at Powerline, Paul Mirengoff lays out the argument. The nub:
To be sure, the pardon of Arpaio is, at least in part, a political act by a president who campaigned on a tough-as-nails immigration policy and who received Arpaio’s backing. But there’s a pretty good argument that the prosecution of Arpaio was also political.
It was the highly politicized, left-wing Obama Justice Department that chose to prosecute Arpaio in connection with the hot button political issue of enforcing immigration laws. The judge whose order Arpaio defied apparently was satisfied with civil contempt. Team Obama went criminal on the octogenarian sheriff. And it did so, according to Arpaio’s lawyers, just two weeks before he stood for reelection.
The pardon thus can be said to represent a political end to a political case.
Taking all things together, I’m still uncertain I quite approve of the pardon. But it was hardly the obvious, flagrant outrage against all that is good and just that most of the press would have us believe.
Published in General
I am so glad that Peter Robinson presents his perspective around these parts. #Balance
I heard Jon Gabriel excoriate Arapaio as, essentially, a crooked bigot. It is far more likely true than false since Jon lives in Arpaio’s constituency. However, I also believe that Peter and Paul Mirengoff also have it right, that Obama’s Justice Dept. just wanted to stick it to the old man, that their motivations had nothing to do with actual justice, but, rather, a whole lot of the same old-same old political crap that was so much a part of that administration. I am, personally, glad that the old man is free to live out his life.
I never could understand why W didn’t pardon Scooter Libby. Trump doesn’t mind taking heat from the Left and, in this respect, is a better person than W.
Rove explained why somewhere. I’ll see if I can find it. There were some issues.
So sorry you don’t quite approve, Mr. Robinson, but my feelings are quite clear: This was retribution by the Left for Arpaio not toeing the Leftist line on Illegal Immigration.
This is supposed to be exactly why, in my opinion, Presidential Pardons exist. When politics overrides law, there is a way out for those being persecuted by the opposing party.
It is also my opinion that Presidential Pardons should not be used as political pandering, as Obama clearly did at the end of his term.
I don’t recall who, but I heard a pundit charge that the judge denied Arpaio his Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury. Can any of Ricochet’s lawyers confirm this?
His offense was too “petty” to trigger the right.( US V Baldwin, SCOTUS 1970). I think the judge could still have granted his request, but wasn’t obligated to as a matter of right since the penalty was 6 months imprisonment max.
I could probably come up with half a dozen reasons the pardon was not a good decision/correct action, and 6 reasons why it was a good decision/correct action.
However, given Mr. Arpaio’s years of service to his community, the lack of any prior criminal activity, lack of proven intent to commit a crime, unanswered questions regarding the court’s judicial conduct/exercise of authority, and the very low likelihood of repeated behavior — I say mercy trumps justice. Thus, the pardon stands as a good and just decision.
We’re missing something I think:
the president has the unfettered discretion to pardon anyone convicted of or charged with, or potentially being charged with, a crime.
So whenever he exercises this power, (and they all do, hundreds of times) he’s pardoning a criminal, or at least a criminal suspect. . He’s not gonna issue an honorary pardon to some exemplary citizen, like the nonagerian Billy Graham.
Arpaio’s crime is a petty offense. But if he had gone to jail with all the alien gang members he put there, it woulda been a death sentence.
no, there’s only one issue in the case against this pardon: it gives Trump’s enemies yet another cannon, which he can ill afford to cede. It was truly a self-sacrificing act of loyalty. Period.
And that–in addition to being glad he’s president–is why I like Trump.
I was wondering the same thing today.
At least President Trump didn’t pardon one each terrorist and traitor.
I am interested in seeing this.
I have extremely mixed feelings. Arpaio as sheriff was a real piece of work, making a career of trampling on civil norms of law enforcement and race relations. Another one of those who would rather grab a headline than ensure due process. He wasn’t going to suffer a massive sentence, nor was he going to suffer confinement conditions anywhere near as bad as what he presided over in his own jail. On the other hand, anything that slaps the Obamaites and infuriates the MSM warms the cockles of my (usually cold) heart.
Next up: Obama. The Left will be so grateful. /smirk
@hypatia: LE officers, especially prominent ones, are not placed in confinement with the general or high-risk populations. They are put in protective custody. The only jail in the Southwest so poorly run that Mr. Arpaio might have been in jeopardy is the one he presided over. He would not have been placed there. He would have been placed in Federal custody. They are a lot more professional.
[Wipes away tears while clicking the ‘Like’ button]
It’s really simple: One branch of govt does not have the power to order another branch of govt to do anything, or to imprison members of other branches for their official acts. In this case, the sherif is a member of the executive branch of a state. Does he have the right to imprison judges for their decisions he doesn’t agree with? Then where the hell do judges get the power to do that to him?
The extent of judicial power over the executive is to refuse to convict defendents which the judicial power determines are being prosecuted under unconstitutional laws. In that case the judicial power is exercising its authority in its proper sphere, the courtroom over which it has authority.
But when judges say, “Stop doing this or that, or do this or that” to the executive or legislative branches…. I’m just sick of it. The next thing will be that legislators are prosecuted for passing what judges consider to be unconstitutional laws.
I have no problem with Sheriff Arpaio’s pardon. There are Constitutional issue’s and Cultural issues on using traffic stops for more than dealing with an offense that is a violation. The Constitutional issues have been litigated before the Supreme Court, and it would require a separate essay to deal with those issues concerning Sheriff Arpaio’s use of a traffic stop to determine a person’s immigration status.
There are cultural issues that are unique to Arizona, and those issues date back to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo signed on February 2, 1848 that made Phoenix a part of the United States. Tucson did not become part of the United States until the Gadsden Treaty was ratified in June of 1854. Both treaties specified that immediate US citizenship would be granted to Mexican citizens living in Arizona, and specified that Spanish and Mexican land grants, and other properties owned by former Mexican citizens would be recognized by the US government.
What all this means is I don’t drive my car in Arizona with a copy of my birth certificate, or passport in the glove box. Make no mistake Sheriff Arpaio’s policy was to target Hispanics. There are families of Hispanic descent that have been in Arizona for hundreds of years, in fact long before the Mayflower landed on American shores. They don’t carry their birth certificates, or passports in the glove box of their vehicle’s any more than I do.
I certainly believe that the Obama administration was vindictive, and by the way beat cops have an extremely low opinion of President Obama and his Department of Justice. The CofC does not allow me to say what they really say about the former President, or the DOJ.
Sheriff Arpaio is 85 years-old, and is no danger to the community that alone is enough for a pardon.
Peter, thank you so much for being a voice of reason. Without you, there would be a lot fewer members on Ricochet.
W. tried too hard to get along with everybody. You can’t please all the people all the time. Trump gets it.
@bobw : Article VI, Constitution of the United States. The “Supremacy Clause.” See also Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1, 1824, regarding the Federal Courts jurisdiction. See also Amendment XIV, Section 5, regarding Congress’ specific power to enact the enabling legislation that empowers the Federal Courts to issue and enforce equal protection orders to state officials. We fought a Civil War to establish some of these principles. Last I looked, anyway.
I know, I just don’t agree with it. There’s no limiting principle in all this which prevents one branch of govt from completely dominating the others.
The supremacy clause doesn’t contradict anything I said. All that clause lays out is the formal principle that the constitution is supreme. That’s not disputed.
@bobw :
I think the balancing of interests is what politics is all about. I sympathize in part, disagree in part, and agree in part with you. As I stated earlier, I am rather conflicted with this.
Your civility, by the way, is always appreciated.
P.S. “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land; . . . ” (italics added)
Let me put this on a more personal level. Your kid is pulled over some night. Your Anglo kid. Would you like it if the officer said how do I know that your not a Canadian. Let me see your birth certificate. You don’t have it, get out of the car you’re coming with me. The desk officer calls you and tells you we have your son here we’ll need you to bring his birth certificate to the precinct, and by the way you better bring yours as well, and your wife’s.
Or if you’re Hispanic and you have a relative buried in a US military cemetery, maybe more than one relative buried in a military cemetery. Would you feel insulted if a police officer demanded proof of citizenship?
There’s so much wrong with this, but I’ll just mention this:
Why does Yer “personal level” have to include “Anglo?” You don’t think anyone around Here could empathize with people with children otherwise? Speaking of racism….
This comment is a shortened version of a post that I have just entered on the Member Feed titled, “Shame on Trump for his pardon of Joe Arpaio.”
In brief, Arpaio flouted the Constitution, disobeyed court orders and bragged about it. It is nonsense to say that Arpaio was convicted for “doing his job” as Trump has asserted. He was convicted for willfully disobeying the law after being ordered to stop singling out drivers based on their ethnicity and detaining them without charges.
I live in Arizona. I have followed Arpaio for years, in the local media instead of solely his appearances on the Fox News Channel. I strongly endorse the comments of Ricochet Editor-In-Chief Jon Gabriel, who lives in Maricopa County, discussed Arpaio at length in The Conservatarians Podcast Episode 63: “Pardon the Corruption” from the 22 minute to 31 minute points. (If you don’t have 9 minutes to listen to Jon Gabriel, I suggest that you invest 5 minutes between the 24 minute and 29 minute points.) To quote Jon Gabriel, Arpaio is “a complete scumbag.” I agree. (Restated, if you don’t believe me, I hope that you will believe the Ricochet Editor-In-Chief Jon Gabriel.)
A Brief Chronology Relative to Contempt of Court
2013 Judge Snow issues a permanent injunction preventing the Sheriff’s office from
“detaining, holding or arresting Latino occupants of vehicles in Maricopa County based on a reasonable belief, without more, that such persons were in the country without authorization.”
Arpaio does not appeal this permanent injunction.
2016 A 21-day trial is held before Judge Snow.
On May 13, 2016, Arpaio is found to be in contempt of court. Judge Snow rules:
“Defendants have engaged in multiple acts of misconduct, dishonest and bad faith. … They have demonstrated a persistent disregard for the orders of this Court, as well as an intention to violate and manipulate the laws and policies regulating their conduct.” Judge Snow ruled that Arpaio had understood the preliminary injunction and had intentionally and knowingly failed to implement it.
2017 A trial is held before Federal Judge Susan Bolton. Her conclusion is that Arpaio was in contempt of court. She states:
“Not only did [Arpaio] abdicate responsibility, he announced to the world and to his subordinates that he was going to continue business as usual no matter who said otherwise.”
Sentencing is set for October 5, 2017. The maximum sentence for criminal contempt would be six months in jail. Many legal observers believe that it would be unlikely for Arpaio to be incarcerated in a jail. At most he would be facing house arrest and a substantial fine.
On August 25, 2017 Trump pardons Arpaio late on a Friday, as Category 4 Hurricane Harvey is about to make landfall.
Because Hispanics were specifically targeted, Sheriff Arapaio put his officers in a difficult position. All it takes for a defense attorney is to subpoena an officer’s cites. Officer Jones I’ve been going through your cites. I see WM here. Did you ask him for proof of citizenship on your traffic stop. How about this one, and this one. No, let’s try this one WF did you ask her for proof of citizenship, no, lets try another.
So to pretend that this was not designed to target a specific group based upon the color of their skin, or their accent is nonsense.
Yeah, but I have the feeling illegal Canadian crossings are not a problem in Arizona. Just sayin’.
Hispanics are 30% of Arizona’s population. Only a small fraction were not American citizens, yet Hispanics were targeted by Arpaio.
Does anyone know whether the attorney general at the time prohibited the sheriff from enforcing immigration in his area?
From other immigration debates I have found a few different laws, one of which is: USC 8 1373
Does this not prohibit the AG from prohibiting a sheriff from asking for immigration status? If so, wasn’t the court order illegal in the first place?
As I stated in the other post, “…a case involving his department’s ‘racial profiling policy.’
Racial profiling is joke. It’s called using common sense.
Who is more likely to be an illegal immigrant in Arizona? A child could answer that question.
This is the same sort of thing that Israel does to prevent their planes from blowing up into a million pieces.”
…
Jon Gabriel might have gone a bit native. People in Arizona should understand that the way the current system is set up, Sheriff Arpaio is in many ways more of a national law enforcement officer than a simple local sheriff. (“He then delivered the individuals he arrested to Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials.” What other lawmen have to do this?) Many people throughout the rest of the country want immigration laws to be enforced even if the people in Arizona do not.
Yeah, he may have gotten a bit corrupt, but he appeared to be just about the only sign of immigration law enforcement sanity in the 21st century before Trump’s election.
Speaker Paul Ryan rips the decision. Immigration appeared to be a defining issue of the Trump era, so how can the Republican Party keep supporting a speaker who has held some type of an amnesty position going back to his refusal to support California Proposition 187 back in 1994 which had 59% support even in liberal California?