Legally Speaking: One step left for Trump’s full pardon of Arpaio
A judge has upheld President Donald Trump's pardon of former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, but there is still one more step to go.
(AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin, file)
(AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin, file)
Judge Susan Bolton ruled Wednesday that President Trump’s presidential pardon of former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio was valid and, as such, she dismissed the criminal conviction against him for contempt of court.
The courtroom was packed. Protesters were outside — both for and against Arpaio — and the sidewalk was lined with hand-painted signs of Arpaio and Trump.
Coming up at 10a, Joe Arpaio Hearing. Meanwhile, outside U.S. District Court, a few protesters and these posters. @monicalindstrom is there. pic.twitter.com/KlmxqnamZF
— Martha Maurer (@MaurerMartha) October 4, 2017
Just another day at the federal courthouse in Phoenix.
But what wasn’t normal was the issue on which Bolton had to rule: Whether the pardon was valid. It is not everyday a judge has to rule on the actions of the president of the United States.
Related:
Prior to Wednesday, Bolton received a large number of amicus curiae briefs that tried to convince her the pardon is invalid. These briefs are documents submitted by persons and organizations that are not actually parties to the case but claim to have some interest in it.
The Supreme Court of the United States receives these types of documents on the cases it decides, but it is not as common for a trial court judge, such as Bolton, to receive them.
Then again, nothing has been common about this case.
Over Arpaio’s objections, Bolton allowed the briefs into the record, read them and then denied what they requested. She ultimately ruled that she followed Supreme Court precedent in deciding the pardon was valid and dismissed the conviction against Arpaio.
That is it. It’s over.
Well, almost. Bolton still has to decide whether all the orders she issued in the case should be dismissed.
Why does this matter? There are numerous civil lawsuits filed against Arpaio for alleged violations of plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and some of the orders she issued in this case could be used against Arpaio in those cases.
Bolton is composed, professional, courteous and often has a smile on her face. But don’t let that fool you. She is intelligent, quick and finds ways to get a few jabs into the record.
After issuing her order that the pardon was valid, she stated “The pardon in this case has the affect of having Joe Arpaio escape punishment for his willful violation of (the preliminary injunction order) in the Melendres case.”
She didn’t have to use the words “escape” and “punishment,” but she did. There is no question where she stands and how she feels about it.
As I was exiting the courtroom I heard an attorney state “I want to be her when I grow up.” In seeing how Bolton handled herself and the attorneys in this case, I can understand why.
Comments
29 Comments
Lol...no zero...you can't have a death sentence commuted and say they served all or most of their sentence...also...over 500 serious felons apologized for by BO...and read up before making such dishonest statements...and by the way...Arpaio was never found guilty of any thing other than ignoring an activist judge's orders...
It does not appear you are thinking clearly by having this sentence: "Arpaio admitted to breaking laws that affected the American's lives."
Did you ever wonder why most immigration enforcement sweeps happened on the west side? It's where the majority of law breaking illegals live. They don't live in north Scottsdale. BTW, what right does a judge have telling an elected official not to enforce laws?
I think very clearly Dave-O. Since 1982, my time arriving in the Valley, I have seen how law breaking illegals ruin neighborhoods, depress wages and cause increases in crime.
I am sick & tired of our laws being broken by folks who will not work hard to make their own country more prosperous!
Judge Bolton had no choice ..... Given that the Supreme Court in 1925 overruled the District Court who held ,I think obviously, that the Courts had to have the power of contempt to do their job and therefore it was inherent in the creation of the Courts by the Constitution and the executive's branch's pardon powers could not rationally therefore extend to supersede what the court's essential powers have to be.
We have already gone through this problem in the aftermath of the Brown vs. Board of Education case 10 years after it was decided by the supreme court that equal but separate education institutions in the south discriminated on the basis of race.
10 years later Governor Wallace sent his national guard to prevent students from being escorted into school by the court's Marshalls. Confrontation was only prevented by President Kennedy nationalizing the Guard and directing them to allow the students to enter.
But what if It had been a President that agreed with Governor Wallace and had not done so. Then what does the Supreme Court do about their decision. Forget It? Or do the students then file a contempt of court charge which the court decides to do and hold's Governor Wallace in contempt of court as was done in Arpaio's case. And then the President who agrees with Wallace then pardons Governor Wallace. Now what does the Supreme Court do? Nothing?
If the Supreme Court Case of Grossman overturning the District Courts, putting the man in jail in spite of a presidential pardon in that case, is not over turned ..... that will be the result. Nothing will happen which mean the president of the United States can be a Dictator when ever he chooses! And it has even been suggested that the Power of Pardon means that the President can Pardon himself, if there is any doubt that not reversing the 1925 case must happen. Of course he has a financial interest in himself so that would be an obvious conflict of interest case which is a violation of law. But no matter his pardoning power is said to be absolute.
It puts this country into a never ending descent into a vortex of ABSURDITY. Which is already all to present in this country by "intellectual" discussions that divorce themselves from using the common sense of the reality of the world we all share, world wide, that we can do nothing about, ..... which if we ignore the result is clear ..... we descend into the unworkable and inescapable pit of absurdity.