Politics Trump pardons Sheriff Joe Arpaio

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Sedatedfork said:
but the courts have the power to interpret the constitution.
Click to expand...

Yes, the courts have the power to interpret the constitution and they do all the time. But there is no fine line here when the court simply ignores the the right to a jury trial. That is not open to interpretation. It means we have the right to a jury trial. It would be very difficult to find a jury that would convict the sheriff for upholding the laws of the United states. You may not like his methods, but that is not your call. The sheriff is answerable to his voters and they spoke. The judge just ignored a straight up requirement in the constitution to provide a jury trial as he knew damn well he would not get a jury to convict. Trump is correct to intervene, the governor got a free pass in not taking action himself.
 
Last edited:
UncleCliffy'sDaddy said:
Seriously???? Seriously??? You suggest a black person gain a "fondness for the rule of law as given us in the Constitution"????? Wow Marz, you truly are clueless, not to mention mindbogglingly insensitive. How many times has the rule of the law as given us by the Constitution worked for them???? Very tasteless comment. Unbelievable.
Click to expand...

Aw calm yourself! The black person has every protection in the constitution today that you or I have. Check it out.
Oh, by the way, I find sensitivity a poor substitute for logical reasoning based on fact and absolutely inadequate in replacing the rule of law. How does that taste?
 
MarAzul said:
Your hate is apparent. Try finding a fondness for the rule of law as given us in the Constitution. I do, I think you might like it.
Click to expand...

The constitution gives me rights you don't want me to have but hey...

My hate.... I only hate racists...
 
@MarAzul The part I most strenuously disagree with is whether the sheriff was upholding the laws of the United States. He violated a court order. I don't see that as upholding the laws. I see that as directly breaking the law. The only way they would not have gotten a conviction with a jury trial is if there was jury nullification. It was clear as day that he broke the law. No remorse whatsoever in fact.
 
Sedatedfork said:
@MarAzul The part I most strenuously disagree with is whether the sheriff was upholding the laws of the United States. He violated a court order. I don't see that as upholding the laws. I see that as directly breaking the law. The only way they would not have gotten a conviction with a jury trial is if there was jury nullification. It was clear as day that he broke the law. No remorse whatsoever in fact.
Click to expand...

Well if you are correct, he should have had a jury trial. I don't think Trump would have given him a pardon in that case.

Of course, I don't think the judge has a right to tell the sheriff what laws to enforce either, but he made that not the issue by denying a proper trial.
 
UncleCliffy'sDaddy said:
Seriously???? Seriously??? You suggest a black person gain a "fondness for the rule of law as given us in the Constitution"????? Wow Marz, you truly are clueless, not to mention mindbogglingly insensitive. How many times has the rule of the law as given us by the Constitution worked for them???? Very tasteless comment. Unbelievable.
Click to expand...

What recent Supreme Court case has screwed over black people?

I can't think of one and I'll gladly read about one you mention.

I'll actually go google Supreme Court screws over black americans right after I post this.
 
bodyman5000 and 1 said:
What recent Supreme Court case has screwed over black people?

I can't think of one and I'll gladly read about one you mention.

I'll actually go google Supreme Court screws over black americans right after I post this.
Click to expand...
Shelby County v. Holder (Voting Rights Act) is the most recent one I can think of.
 
Sedatedfork said:
Shelby County v. Holder (Voting Rights Act) is the most recent one I can think of.
Click to expand...
Just read a quick recap of it. Seems a shame but pretty obviously the right decision to stop making different states follow different rules.



Republicans will find real ways to keep black people from voting I'm quite sure of that.

We have to keep them from doing it within the law.

I honestly don't know the latest on Stop and Frisk. That's some bullshit that may or may not work BUT I DON'T GIVE A FUCK. THIS IS AMERICA. It needs to be ruled unconstitutional if it hasn't already.


I'm against illegal immigration AND those fuckface checkpoints on American soil. My wife has to keep me from screaming at those assholes.
 
bodyman5000 and 1 said:
Just read a quick recap of it. Seems a shame but pretty obviously the right decision to stop making different states follow different rules.



Republicans will find real ways to keep black people from voting I'm quite sure of that.

We have to keep them from doing it within the law.

I honestly don't know the latest on Stop and Frisk. That's some bullshit that may or may not work BUT I DON'T GIVE A FUCK. THIS IS AMERICA. It needs to be ruled unconstitutional if it hasn't already.


I'm against illegal immigration AND those fuckface checkpoints on American soil. My wife has to keep me from screaming at those assholes.
Click to expand...

Sometimes I picture you going into some Alex Jones rant. But I guess since he's divorcing, you must not be him. :)
 
Sedatedfork said:
Sometimes I picture you going into some Alex Jones rant. But I guess since he's divorcing, you must not be him. :)
Click to expand...
I just like freedom. Everyone should be subject to the same rules. Once we are we can all do whatever we want within them.

If Dviss and I lived in the same town he could vote for me. All I'd have to tell him is for every person you vote for, for me vote for the other guy. And then vote NO on every other question unless there is a measure to repeal some other measure.

As for Alex Jones, I've seen some of his videos and his acting is about as good as a Lifetime original movie...not good.
 
fake-tweet20170829-9-he7z27.jpg
 
The Professional Fan said:
Click to expand...

The police have been getting armored trucks and shit for years. Didn't like it when Obama was President but nunya ever said shit then.

He DID NOT praise any white supremacists.

He can deport all white illegals, wonder how many there are? Send em packing


Arpaio... whatever. I still agree with MarAzul about the jury thing. I don't know if I would have actually pardoned him.

Don't like the Transgender ban except for not paying for surgery. Let them in, let them stay. Fine with me. Especially if the military guys really want them allowed.
 
bodyman5000 and 1 said:
I just like freedom. Everyone should be subject to the same rules. Once we are we can all do whatever we want within them.

If Dviss and I lived in the same town he could vote for me. All I'd have to tell him is for every person you vote for, for me vote for the other guy. And then vote NO on every other question unless there is a measure to repeal some other measure.

As for Alex Jones, I've seen some of his videos and his acting is about as good as a Lifetime original movie...not good.
Click to expand...
Hah -- for some reason your all caps post made me visualize Alex Jones. I dunno why.
 
bodyman5000 and 1 said:
The police have been getting armored trucks and shit for years. Didn't like it when Obama was President but nunya ever said shit then.

He DID NOT praise any white supremacists.

He can deport all white illegals, wonder how many there are? Send em packing


Arpaio... whatever. I still agree with MarAzul about the jury thing. I don't know if I would have actually pardoned him.

Don't like the Transgender ban except for not paying for surgery. Let them in, let them stay. Fine with me. Especially if the military guys really want them allowed.
Click to expand...
Well I guess we can knock one off the list for now

 
dviss1 said:
The constitution gives me rights you don't want me to have but hey
Click to expand...

Oh! I am for you having rights. I am glad I don't have to feed you.
And go ahead, hate all you want. It is bad for your health, but well within your rights.
 
bodyman5000 and 1 said:
Oh, 2 years ago. I've been pissed about it for years. Probably avoided that thread because I thought it would piss me off.

Funny how it took Obama a controversy to see how stupid it is to have a militaristic police force.
Click to expand...

That seems like an odd comment. You do understand that Trump cancelled the Obama orders to demilitarize the police.

You support demilitarization, and yet you are criticizing Obama rather than Trump? I don't know, that seems sort of nakedly partisan. Not that that's against the rules or anything.

barfo
 
barfo said:
That seems like an odd comment. You do understand that Trump cancelled the Obama orders to demilitarize the police.

You support demilitarization, and yet you are criticizing Obama rather than Trump? I don't know, that seems sort of nakedly partisan. Not that that's against the rules or anything.

barfo
Click to expand...
My point, and it is undeniable....is that Trump didn't start this.
 
MarAzul said:
Yes, the courts have the power to interpret the constitution and they do all the time. But there is no fine line here when the court simply ignores the the right to a jury trial. That is not open to interpretation. It means we have the right to a jury trial. It would be very difficult to find a jury that would convict the sheriff for upholding the laws of the United states. You may not like his methods, but that is not your call. The sheriff is answerable to his voters and they spoke. The judge just ignored a straight up requirement in the constitution to provide a jury trial as he knew damn well he would not get a jury to convict. Trump is correct to intervene, the governor got a free pass in not taking action himself.
Click to expand...

I finally got around to looking this up. As I expected, there is no right to a jury trial in this case.

From the court documents, the prosecution said:

There is no constitutional right to a jury trial for criminal contempt charges resulting in a sentence of imprisonment of six months or less.
Click to expand...

And Arpaio agreed:

Defendant Arpaio acknowledges that there is no constitutional right to a jury trial for defendants charged with “petty” offenses where the maximum sentence does not exceed six months imprisonment
Click to expand...

so your objection is, as they say in court, overruled.

barfo
 
I'm pretty sure Trump's trans ban and some other distasteful (to say the least) orders were designed to convince a senator or some senators to vote the way Trump wants on Bills before congress.

crandc's (dubious source) link does not at all say Arpaio set a puppy on fire. If I have any one gripe about her, it's that she either doesn't read her own links or completely mischaracterizes what's in them.

Regarding "refusing to prosecute rape," there are two things to consider:
1) If the authorities determined there was no rape to pursue, where's the beef?
2) Undocumented aliens are routinely denied public services (welfare, social security, etc.) - if you believe this is how it should be, you might see that Arpaio might be doing just that (denying public services)
 
Hahahahahahaha!

I post that Denny just loves to argue with Minstrel and Barfo so to change things up he goes after Crandc.

"Dammit dog, I have to argue with someone!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Featured content

Back
Top