Arpaio

[Max_Polo]

Blinded by your bias, it shows over and over.

But you would know that if you read my link.

I and already said specifically that impeachment was the available congressional recourse.

 

[Max_Polo]

Such an honorable man:
Posted July 24, 2012

Ariz. sheriff backtracks on praise for KKK
Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who has been accused of being prejudiced, said he no longer considers comparisons to the Ku Klux Klan "an honor."
Arpaio said the statement about immigrants was taken out of context, adding that if a person were to cross the U.S.-Mexico border on foot over four days in the desert that person “could be dirty. That’s the context on how I used that word.”

He also was asked about a 2007 appearance on a national cable television news show. CNN host Lou Dobbs spoke with Arpaio at the time about comparisons between his department and the KKK, about which the sheriff said, “I think it’s an honor. It means we are doing something.”
http://www.pressherald.com/2012/07/24/ariz-sheriff-back-tracks-on-kkk-support/

So, are you re-litigating the president's authority to pardon or the wisdom of doing so or both?

 

[Industrialsize]

All right, I went and read this bullshit.

"The Ninth Circuit might see the pardon as an assault by the President on the very institution of the judiciary."

By the author's illogic, all pardons might be seen as an assault...on the judiciary. Now I need more caffeine.

Nope you're cherry picking. The article is very specific in saying a pardon of a "contempt of court" conviction would be an assault on the Judiciary. Contempt citations are how judges compel people to follow court orders.

 

[Industrialsize]

So, are you re-litigating the president's authority to pardon or the wisdom of doing so or both?

Neither, just showing what a piece of scum Arpaio is.

 

[Max_Polo]

Nope you're cherry picking. The article is very specific in saying a pardon of a "contempt of court" conviction would be an assault on the Judiciary. Contempt citations are how judges compel people to follow court orders.

Blinded by your bias, it shows over and over.

Not cherry picking, I quoted directly and drew a conclusion with which you may feel free to disagree.

 

[MikesJohnson]

Neither, just showing what a piece of scum Arpaio is.

If only Joe had been a terrorist or a heroin dealer. Then you'd be ecstatic.

 

[Max_Polo]

If only Joe had been a terrorist or a heroin dealer. Then you'd be ecstatic.

Or http://nypost.com/2016/01/17/after-pardoning-criminal-marc-rich-clintons-made-millions-off-friends/

 

[Industrialsize]

Or http://nypost.com/2016/01/17/after-pardoning-criminal-marc-rich-clintons-made-millions-off-friends/

Whataboutism at its finest. I agree that the Mark Rich pardon was horrible. They had congressional hearings about it. And if you were paying attention, I posted about it in this thread.

 

[Chrysippus]

Or http://nypost.com/2016/01/17/after-pardoning-criminal-marc-rich-clintons-made-millions-off-friends/

But Tommy did it too, mom!

Oh brother...

 

[TexanStar]

Nope you're cherry picking. The article is very specific in saying a pardon of a "contempt of court" conviction would be an assault on the Judiciary. Contempt citations are how judges compel people to follow court orders.

That's still cherry picking.

If a judge yelled out "Bros before hos, you owe me tree fiddy!" and charged you with contempt of court... why should that have to stand?

Contempt of court is nothing new. There's been time immemorial to restrict the president from issuing pardons against contempt of court charges if that needed to be in place.

But what we have now is that Trump issued a pardon for this specific charge, and so now you have the wheels of liberal machinery spinning and grinding to come up with a reason why this one specific crime should be removed from the president's authority.

I don't want to live in a world where you can pardon someone for their participation in a mass murder or gang rape, but you can't pardon them for sassing a judge. The sheer derpitude would be off the charts.

 

[Max_Polo]

Whataboutism at its finest. I agree that the Mark Rich pardon was horrible. They had congressional hearings about it. And if you were paying attention, I posted about it in this thread.

You love that word it seems. And this time, you've actually applied it correctly. I don't see your outrage at democrats in congress - or elsewhere - doing stupid things. Your bias is blindingly obvious.

 

[TexanStar]

You love that word it seems. And this time, you've actually applied it correctly. I don't see your outrage at democrats in congress - or elsewhere - doing stupid things. Your bias is blindingly obvious.

He's retroactively angry. When he finishes his time machine, he'll pop back and ask his younger self to care so much when Democrats do it so that he can feel like his current argument is reasonable.

 

[Chrysippus]

Your bias is blindingly obvious.

As is yours.

 

[TexanStar]

As is yours.

Maybe, but we suffered through having Obama's rightful supreme court nomination stolen by Republicans, having tons of his federal court appointees stolen by Republicans, and we're now talking about the pardoning of Grandpa Fucko McRacistFace from a few months in jail as an untenable assault on the judiciary.

Come over here into moderate land and look at that sentence for a minute

 

[Industrialsize]

Maybe, but we suffered through having Obama's rightful supreme court nomination stolen by Republicans, having tons of his federal court appointees stolen by Republicans, and we're now talking about the pardoning of Grandpa Fucko McRacistFace from a few months in jail as an untenable assault on the judiciary.

Come over here into moderate land and look at that sentence for a minute

You still don't get it.

 

[Max_Polo]

You still don't get it.

I think he does.

 

[Chrysippus]

look at that sentence

Um, which sentence would that be?

 

[deleted15807]

But Tommy did it too, mom!

Oh brother...

When the going gets tough there's always the Clintons, George Soros or Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson.

 

[TexanStar]

Um, which sentence would that be?

The one pointing out there have been very significant blows to maintenance of even a balanced Federal judiciary, but we're going to act like this pardon is the more devastating issue.

It's like if you're standing in a house, the house is on fire, and you're complaining that someone tracked mud through the kitchen.

Arpaio's pardon is nothing more than an annoyance. There is literally going to be zero impact on your life, or the life of anyone you know, because Arpaio got his racist ass out a few months early.

Trump didn't invent racial profiling and there will be just as much after the pardon as there was before it.

What will impact you is the fact that Gorsuch is sitting on the supreme court rather than Garland. The impact of that is going to show up in Supreme court rulings that definitely affect you or people you love.

The same is true of several federal judge appointments which the GOP stalled Obama's constitutional right to fill until they could get a Republican in office.

I can only try to point you guys at the fire so much. If you want to be obsessed about the mud on the carpet instead, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Max_Polo]

When the going gets tough there's always the Clintons, George Soros or Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson.

Yep, and of course can't forget Obama. Mindless shit-throwing isn't limited to the alt-left, the rest of us get to have some fun too.