Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

DonViejo

(60,536 posts)
Wed Sep 13, 2017, 05:49 PM Sep 2017

Judge Considers Defying Trump Over Arpaio Pardon

by John Banzhaf | 3:02 pm, September 13th, 2017

Although President Donald Trump has issued a full pardon to former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, and his lawyers have filed a motion seeking to have his conviction thrown out as a result, District Court Judge Susan Bolton has so far refused to grant the motion, and is in fact considering requests before her that she deny it.

In papers lodged with her last week, it was argued that “The president can’t use the pardon power to immunize lawless officials from consequences for violating people’s constitutional rights.” This contrasts with his lawyers’ arguments that “The president’s pardon moots the case, and it warrants an automatic vacatur of all opinions, judgments, and verdicts related to the criminal charge.”

The Justice Department supports his position, telling the judge on Monday that “the government agrees that the Court should vacate all orders and dismiss the case as moot.” But although many commentators have argued that the President’s pardoning power is “unlimited,” and some have even worried that he might issue blanket pardons to all those being investigated by Special Counsel Robert Mueller to frustrate the investigation, she is reviewing contrary legal arguments.

These counter arguments contend that the president’s constitutional power to issue pardons “is limited by later-enacted amendments, starting with the Bill of Rights. For example, were a president to announce that he planned to pardon all white defendants convicted of a certain crime but not all black defendants, that would conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.”

Similarly, they argue, Trump cannot use pardons to undercut a court’s power to protect people from being denied their Due Process rights by immunizing otherwise unlawful acts like Arpaio’s. It contends that “the president cannot be allowed to weaponize the pardon power to circumvent the judiciary’s ability to enforce and protect constitutional rights.”

more
https://lawnewz.com/high-profile/judge-considers-defying-trump-over-arpaio-pardon/

7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Judge Considers Defying Trump Over Arpaio Pardon (Original Post) DonViejo Sep 2017 OP
This woman judge is yet another brave, patriotic American who is owed an apology for allowing Eliot Rosewater Sep 2017 #1
May her well-reasoned defiance continue unabated. n/t CaliforniaPeggy Sep 2017 #2
K&R Scurrilous Sep 2017 #3
Oh I think this is very note worthy: tRumplaw ProudLib72 Sep 2017 #4
So if the case is moot canetoad Sep 2017 #5
Sounds reasonable to me Beausoleil Sep 2017 #6
More precisely, this motion is moot. Jim Lane Sep 2017 #7

Eliot Rosewater

(31,104 posts)
1. This woman judge is yet another brave, patriotic American who is owed an apology for allowing
Wed Sep 13, 2017, 05:50 PM
Sep 2017

a pile of human filth to occupy the WH.

ProudLib72

(17,984 posts)
4. Oh I think this is very note worthy: tRumplaw
Wed Sep 13, 2017, 05:57 PM
Sep 2017
Several scholars, including some who oppose him, suggested that some judges appear to be adopting a new jurisprudence called “Trumplaw” aimed uniquely at this President; a method of judging cases which is aimed specifically at countering some of the practices of President Trump, even if this development means creating new legal principles and/or overlooking (or at least minimizing) other established ones.

canetoad

(17,129 posts)
5. So if the case is moot
Wed Sep 13, 2017, 06:03 PM
Sep 2017

Isn't the pardon moot too? Then it's right back to the start and Arpaio can be prosecuted.

Beausoleil

(2,832 posts)
6. Sounds reasonable to me
Wed Sep 13, 2017, 06:19 PM
Sep 2017

If the case is moot too, it's like there was no trial. Seems to me that double jeopardy wouldn't apply.

You can't have it both ways.

 

Jim Lane

(11,175 posts)
7. More precisely, this motion is moot.
Wed Sep 13, 2017, 08:35 PM
Sep 2017

The first issue is whether, in light of the pardon, there are any remaining legal consequences to Arpaio's conviction. If we assume the pardon to be valid, then he can't be fined or imprisoned; the scheduled sentencing hearing is moot and should not be held.

Do other consequences persist? For example, does Arizona law bar issuing a firearms license or a private investigator's license to someone with a criminal record, and would this rule apply to a pardoned criminal? If the answer is Yes, then Arpaio's managing to beat the rap on jail time, via a pardon, gives no reason to vacate the conviction and relieve him of other consequences. If the answer is No (i.e., there are no remaining legal consequences of the conviction), then vacating the conviction wouldn't change his legal status in any way, and the motion to vacate it is moot.

All this is even before we get to the argument that the pardon is not valid.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Judge Considers Defying T...