|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 26 2017 11:59 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2017 11:54 LegalLord wrote:
I gotta say, this pardon very well may be the least defensible act yet from the Trump administration. I mostly am just sitting here scratching my head as to why anyone would think this is anything but the worst idea imaginable. Here's a hint why someone would think this is a good idea:
Easy way of satisfying his voter base, plain and simple.
Seeing a grown man post like a teenage Internet troll complete with the emoticons is a bit weird to me.
|
On August 26 2017 11:33 Wulfey_LA wrote:
Anti-anti-Trumpers: when you spin for Trump, this is what you spin for:
EDIT: next time you spin for Trump and put up some feeble 'b-b-b-b-but Antifa/Lynch/Lewinski" nonsense, ask yourself what you think about state violence in violation of the constitution.
Clueless left wingers: Stop circling back to arguments like it's okay to punch a nazi or nazis don't get free speech. It makes you look bad. "This is what you spin for." Maybe you need to wake up to what it means to rarely support Trump and then sometimes find his attackers are just as idiotic and blind as he is.
+ Show Spoiler [pardon power] +
Like people who want a re-do on the constitution over this.
|
The Pro-Trump arguments are super clear. The pardon was about sticking it to the libs.
The bullshit is the constant anti-anti-Trumper whine about some time Bill Clinton didn't quite live up to liberal values, or that time that Barack Obama embraced identity politics by coming out as black. Or how HRC IGNORED and LEFT BEHIND white america because she didn't call out whites in listing how diverse a crowd was at a speech she gave. And that somehow these slip-ups justify spinning for DJT's affirmatively evil actions.
|
On August 26 2017 12:09 Danglars wrote:Clueless left wingers: Stop circling back to arguments like it's okay to punch a nazi or nazis don't get free speech. It makes you look bad. "This is what you spin for." Maybe you need to wake up to what it means to rarely support Trump and then sometimes find his attackers are just as idiotic and blind as he is. + Show Spoiler [pardon power] +
I'm old school I prefer my Nazi's in full retreat, dead on the streets, hanging from lamp posts like the old days. Anyways...
|
On August 26 2017 12:09 Danglars wrote:Clueless left wingers: Stop circling back to arguments like it's okay to punch a nazi or nazis don't get free speech. It makes you look bad. "This is what you spin for." Maybe you need to wake up to what it means to rarely support Trump and then sometimes find his attackers are just as idiotic and blind as he is. + Show Spoiler [pardon power] +
So you are cool with sanctioning state violence in violation of the Constitution because it sticks it to the libs? Just make the pro-Trump argument here. Don't hide behind b-b-b-b-b-but Antifa exactly as I predicted.
Also, I read Dan McLaughlin's thread. His first premise is "ignore the substance of the pardon", and then he proceeds to make a faulty procedural argument. First, I reject his premise entirely. The substance matters as shown in the thread you just quoted that I linked.
Second, accepting his ludicrous "ignore the substance because Republicans are okay with this because it sticks it to the libs", he is wrong there too. In his entire thread he misses three key facts about this pardon:
(1) This was pre-sentencing, and shortcircuited due process of law
(2) This cut the legs out from judicial power over law enforcement. Contempt is how judges keep people who ignored their orders in line.
(3) Arpio showed zero remorse about flouting the orders of a judge and used his friendship with DJT to defeat a judicial order.
And No, Dan McLaughlin's "but Dems would be okay with pardons to defeat a Republican judge" line does not hold water. He cited no actual Democrats for that. And his b-b-b-b-but imaginary Democrats whataboutism does not excuse DJT here.
EDIT: if you seriously want to engage in a debate about the procedural questions about this pardon, please read this piece by Noah Feldman. B-b-b-b-but Antifa will not make DJT crippling the Judicial branch's power over law enforcement okay.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-08-23/arpaio-pardon-would-show-contempt-for-constitution
|
On August 26 2017 12:09 Danglars wrote:Clueless left wingers: Stop circling back to arguments like it's okay to punch a nazi or nazis don't get free speech. It makes you look bad. "This is what you spin for." Maybe you need to wake up to what it means to rarely support Trump and then sometimes find his attackers are just as idiotic and blind as he is. + Show Spoiler [pardon power] +
A burning puppy.
|
On August 26 2017 12:18 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2017 12:09 Danglars wrote:On August 26 2017 11:33 Wulfey_LA wrote:Anti-anti-Trumpers: when you spin for Trump, this is what you spin for: https://twitter.com/phoenixnewtimes/status/901263384087334914EDIT: next time you spin for Trump and put up some feeble 'b-b-b-b-but Antifa/Lynch/Lewinski" nonsense, ask yourself what you think about state violence in violation of the constitution. Clueless left wingers: Stop circling back to arguments like it's okay to punch a nazi or nazis don't get free speech. It makes you look bad. "This is what you spin for." Maybe you need to wake up to what it means to rarely support Trump and then sometimes find his attackers are just as idiotic and blind as he is. + Show Spoiler [pardon power] + So you are cool with sanctioning state violence in violation of the Constitution because it sticks it to the libs? Just make the pro-Trump argument here. Don't hide behind b-b-b-b-b-but Antifa exactly as I predicted. Also, I read Dan McLaughlin's thread. His first premise is "ignore the substance of the pardon", and then he proceeds to make a faulty procedural argument. First, I reject his premise entirely. The substance matters as shown in the thread you just quoted that I linked. Second, accepting his ludicrous "ignore the substance because Republicans are okay with this because it sticks it to the libs", he is wrong there too. In his entire thread he misses three key facts about this pardon: (1) This was pre-sentencing, and shortcircuited due process of law (2) This cut the legs out from judicial power over law enforcement. Contempt is how judges keep people who ignored their orders in line. (3) Arpio showed zero remorse about flouting the orders of a judge and used his friendship with DJT to defeat a judicial order. And No, Dan McLaughlin's "but Dems would be okay with pardons to defeat a Republican judge" line does not hold water. He cited no actual Democrats for that. And his b-b-b-b-but imaginary Democrats whataboutism does not excuse DJT here. EDIT: if you seriously want to engage in a debate about the procedural questions about this pardon, please read this piece by Noah Feldman. B-b-b-b-but Antifa will not make DJT crippling the Judicial branch's power over law enforcement okay. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-08-23/arpaio-pardon-would-show-contempt-for-constitution
Yeah but Antifa don't like state violence so state violence is good,right?
|
|
|
On August 26 2017 12:18 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2017 12:09 Danglars wrote:On August 26 2017 11:33 Wulfey_LA wrote:Anti-anti-Trumpers: when you spin for Trump, this is what you spin for: https://twitter.com/phoenixnewtimes/status/901263384087334914EDIT: next time you spin for Trump and put up some feeble 'b-b-b-b-but Antifa/Lynch/Lewinski" nonsense, ask yourself what you think about state violence in violation of the constitution. Clueless left wingers: Stop circling back to arguments like it's okay to punch a nazi or nazis don't get free speech. It makes you look bad. "This is what you spin for." Maybe you need to wake up to what it means to rarely support Trump and then sometimes find his attackers are just as idiotic and blind as he is. + Show Spoiler [pardon power] + So you are cool with sanctioning state violence in violation of the Constitution because it sticks it to the libs? Just make the pro-Trump argument here. Don't hide behind b-b-b-b-b-but Antifa exactly as I predicted. Also, I read Dan McLaughlin's thread. His first premise is "ignore the substance of the pardon", and then he proceeds to make a faulty procedural argument. First, I reject his premise entirely. The substance matters as shown in the thread you just quoted that I linked. Second, accepting his ludicrous "ignore the substance because Republicans are okay with this because it sticks it to the libs", he is wrong there too. In his entire thread he misses three key facts about this pardon: (1) This was pre-sentencing, and shortcircuited due process of law (2) This cut the legs out from judicial power over law enforcement. Contempt is how judges keep people who ignored their orders in line. (3) Arpio showed zero remorse about flouting the orders of a judge and used his friendship with DJT to defeat a judicial order. And No, Dan McLaughlin's "but Dems would be okay with pardons to defeat a Republican judge" line does not hold water. He cited no actual Democrats for that. And his b-b-b-b-but imaginary Democrats whataboutism does not excuse DJT here. EDIT: if you seriously want to engage in a debate about the procedural questions about this pardon, please read this piece by Noah Feldman. B-b-b-b-but Antifa will not make DJT crippling the Judicial branch's power over law enforcement okay. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-08-23/arpaio-pardon-would-show-contempt-for-constitution
That Bloomberg editorial is terrible. This opening paragraph is hyperbolic garbage:
If President Donald Trump pardons Joe Arpaio, as he broadly hinted at during a rally Tuesday in Arizona, it would not be an ordinary exercise of the power -- it would be an impeachable offense. Arpaio, the former sheriff of Arizona’s Maricopa County, was convicted of criminal contempt of court for ignoring the federal judge’s order that he follow the U.S. Constitution in doing his job. For Trump to pardon him would be an assault on the federal judiciary, the Constitution and the rule of law itself.
No where in his polemic rant does the author even come close to making the case that parson amounts to an impeachable offense. And his attempts at distinguishing the pardon of Arpaio on this point from other presidential pardons are utterly specious.
|
On August 26 2017 12:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2017 12:18 Wulfey_LA wrote:On August 26 2017 12:09 Danglars wrote:On August 26 2017 11:33 Wulfey_LA wrote:Anti-anti-Trumpers: when you spin for Trump, this is what you spin for: https://twitter.com/phoenixnewtimes/status/901263384087334914EDIT: next time you spin for Trump and put up some feeble 'b-b-b-b-but Antifa/Lynch/Lewinski" nonsense, ask yourself what you think about state violence in violation of the constitution. Clueless left wingers: Stop circling back to arguments like it's okay to punch a nazi or nazis don't get free speech. It makes you look bad. "This is what you spin for." Maybe you need to wake up to what it means to rarely support Trump and then sometimes find his attackers are just as idiotic and blind as he is. + Show Spoiler [pardon power] + So you are cool with sanctioning state violence in violation of the Constitution because it sticks it to the libs? Just make the pro-Trump argument here. Don't hide behind b-b-b-b-b-but Antifa exactly as I predicted. Also, I read Dan McLaughlin's thread. His first premise is "ignore the substance of the pardon", and then he proceeds to make a faulty procedural argument. First, I reject his premise entirely. The substance matters as shown in the thread you just quoted that I linked. Second, accepting his ludicrous "ignore the substance because Republicans are okay with this because it sticks it to the libs", he is wrong there too. In his entire thread he misses three key facts about this pardon: (1) This was pre-sentencing, and shortcircuited due process of law (2) This cut the legs out from judicial power over law enforcement. Contempt is how judges keep people who ignored their orders in line. (3) Arpio showed zero remorse about flouting the orders of a judge and used his friendship with DJT to defeat a judicial order. And No, Dan McLaughlin's "but Dems would be okay with pardons to defeat a Republican judge" line does not hold water. He cited no actual Democrats for that. And his b-b-b-b-but imaginary Democrats whataboutism does not excuse DJT here. EDIT: if you seriously want to engage in a debate about the procedural questions about this pardon, please read this piece by Noah Feldman. B-b-b-b-but Antifa will not make DJT crippling the Judicial branch's power over law enforcement okay. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-08-23/arpaio-pardon-would-show-contempt-for-constitution That Bloomberg editorial is terrible. This opening paragraph is hyperbolic garbage: Show nested quote +If President Donald Trump pardons Joe Arpaio, as he broadly hinted at during a rally Tuesday in Arizona, it would not be an ordinary exercise of the power -- it would be an impeachable offense. Arpaio, the former sheriff of Arizona’s Maricopa County, was convicted of criminal contempt of court for ignoring the federal judge’s order that he follow the U.S. Constitution in doing his job. For Trump to pardon him would be an assault on the federal judiciary, the Constitution and the rule of law itself. No where in his polemic rant does the author even come close to making the case that parson amounts to an impeachable offense. And his attempts at distinguishing the pardon of Arpaio on this point from other presidential pardons are utterly specious.
Here, have it from Madison's mouth as to the importance of impeachment as a check on pardons. Madison's words put Apraio's birtherism spinning back in 2012 in a more sinister light. If DJT is going to use the pardon power to interrupt prosecutions of friends, yes, that is a real assault on Article III.
In particular, Mason objected that “he may frequently pardon crimes that were advised by himself.” He complained, “If he has the power of granting pardons before indictment, or conviction, may he not stop inquiry and prevent detection?”
That seems like a formidable objection, but, as usual, James Madison, his fellow Virginian and the closest thing to the Constitution’s father, was one step ahead of him.
Gently, Madison pointed to “one security in this case to which gentlemen may not have adverted.” The security was that “if the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; (and) they can remove him if found guilty.” In Madison’s view, “This is a great security.”
Mason was focused on cases in which a president pardoned people for committing crimes that he himself “advised” (apparently in the sense of personally suggesting and helping to plan). More broadly, Madison urged that if the president was merely “connected, in any suspicious manner,” with someone who was engaged in wrongdoing, and if he decided to “shelter” (meaning pardon) him, then the president could be impeached.
http://cjonline.com/opinion/columns/2017-08-09/cass-sunstein-simple-answer-trump-pardon-question
|
The pardon is awful and pardoned a pathetic excuse of a human being and that might be the nicest thing I can say about him, but it is within his rights to pardon him. If the president saw fit he could pardon every single criminal in jail at the moment and there would be no repercussions which is why the pardon as a policy should probably have more rules to it then just blanket presidential power but then again I guess the founders assumed more responsible and adult men would be president and for 200+ years they were right.
|
Trump, probably: "Well in the past two weeks, I've hated on blacks and Jews and the transgender community, so who else can I- oh yeah, fuck you, Latinos."
|
On August 26 2017 12:41 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2017 12:33 xDaunt wrote:On August 26 2017 12:18 Wulfey_LA wrote:On August 26 2017 12:09 Danglars wrote:On August 26 2017 11:33 Wulfey_LA wrote:Anti-anti-Trumpers: when you spin for Trump, this is what you spin for: https://twitter.com/phoenixnewtimes/status/901263384087334914EDIT: next time you spin for Trump and put up some feeble 'b-b-b-b-but Antifa/Lynch/Lewinski" nonsense, ask yourself what you think about state violence in violation of the constitution. Clueless left wingers: Stop circling back to arguments like it's okay to punch a nazi or nazis don't get free speech. It makes you look bad. "This is what you spin for." Maybe you need to wake up to what it means to rarely support Trump and then sometimes find his attackers are just as idiotic and blind as he is. + Show Spoiler [pardon power] + So you are cool with sanctioning state violence in violation of the Constitution because it sticks it to the libs? Just make the pro-Trump argument here. Don't hide behind b-b-b-b-b-but Antifa exactly as I predicted. Also, I read Dan McLaughlin's thread. His first premise is "ignore the substance of the pardon", and then he proceeds to make a faulty procedural argument. First, I reject his premise entirely. The substance matters as shown in the thread you just quoted that I linked. Second, accepting his ludicrous "ignore the substance because Republicans are okay with this because it sticks it to the libs", he is wrong there too. In his entire thread he misses three key facts about this pardon: (1) This was pre-sentencing, and shortcircuited due process of law (2) This cut the legs out from judicial power over law enforcement. Contempt is how judges keep people who ignored their orders in line. (3) Arpio showed zero remorse about flouting the orders of a judge and used his friendship with DJT to defeat a judicial order. And No, Dan McLaughlin's "but Dems would be okay with pardons to defeat a Republican judge" line does not hold water. He cited no actual Democrats for that. And his b-b-b-b-but imaginary Democrats whataboutism does not excuse DJT here. EDIT: if you seriously want to engage in a debate about the procedural questions about this pardon, please read this piece by Noah Feldman. B-b-b-b-but Antifa will not make DJT crippling the Judicial branch's power over law enforcement okay. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-08-23/arpaio-pardon-would-show-contempt-for-constitution That Bloomberg editorial is terrible. This opening paragraph is hyperbolic garbage: If President Donald Trump pardons Joe Arpaio, as he broadly hinted at during a rally Tuesday in Arizona, it would not be an ordinary exercise of the power -- it would be an impeachable offense. Arpaio, the former sheriff of Arizona’s Maricopa County, was convicted of criminal contempt of court for ignoring the federal judge’s order that he follow the U.S. Constitution in doing his job. For Trump to pardon him would be an assault on the federal judiciary, the Constitution and the rule of law itself. No where in his polemic rant does the author even come close to making the case that parson amounts to an impeachable offense. And his attempts at distinguishing the pardon of Arpaio on this point from other presidential pardons are utterly specious. Here, have it from Madison's mouth as to the importance of impeachment as a check on pardons. Madison's words put Apraio's birtherism spinning back in 2012 in a more sinister light. If DJT is going to use the pardon power to interrupt prosecutions of friends, yes, that is a real assault on Article III. Show nested quote +
In particular, Mason objected that “he may frequently pardon crimes that were advised by himself.” He complained, “If he has the power of granting pardons before indictment, or conviction, may he not stop inquiry and prevent detection?”
That seems like a formidable objection, but, as usual, James Madison, his fellow Virginian and the closest thing to the Constitution’s father, was one step ahead of him.
Gently, Madison pointed to “one security in this case to which gentlemen may not have adverted.” The security was that “if the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; (and) they can remove him if found guilty.” In Madison’s view, “This is a great security.”
Mason was focused on cases in which a president pardoned people for committing crimes that he himself “advised” (apparently in the sense of personally suggesting and helping to plan). More broadly, Madison urged that if the president was merely “connected, in any suspicious manner,” with someone who was engaged in wrongdoing, and if he decided to “shelter” (meaning pardon) him, then the president could be impeached.
http://cjonline.com/opinion/columns/2017-08-09/cass-sunstein-simple-answer-trump-pardon-question
You should take the time to read what you're quoting. Madison is referring to cases of conspiracy involving the president, which doesn't apply in this situation.
|
On August 26 2017 12:41 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2017 12:33 xDaunt wrote:On August 26 2017 12:18 Wulfey_LA wrote:On August 26 2017 12:09 Danglars wrote:On August 26 2017 11:33 Wulfey_LA wrote:Anti-anti-Trumpers: when you spin for Trump, this is what you spin for: https://twitter.com/phoenixnewtimes/status/901263384087334914EDIT: next time you spin for Trump and put up some feeble 'b-b-b-b-but Antifa/Lynch/Lewinski" nonsense, ask yourself what you think about state violence in violation of the constitution. Clueless left wingers: Stop circling back to arguments like it's okay to punch a nazi or nazis don't get free speech. It makes you look bad. "This is what you spin for." Maybe you need to wake up to what it means to rarely support Trump and then sometimes find his attackers are just as idiotic and blind as he is. + Show Spoiler [pardon power] + So you are cool with sanctioning state violence in violation of the Constitution because it sticks it to the libs? Just make the pro-Trump argument here. Don't hide behind b-b-b-b-b-but Antifa exactly as I predicted. Also, I read Dan McLaughlin's thread. His first premise is "ignore the substance of the pardon", and then he proceeds to make a faulty procedural argument. First, I reject his premise entirely. The substance matters as shown in the thread you just quoted that I linked. Second, accepting his ludicrous "ignore the substance because Republicans are okay with this because it sticks it to the libs", he is wrong there too. In his entire thread he misses three key facts about this pardon: (1) This was pre-sentencing, and shortcircuited due process of law (2) This cut the legs out from judicial power over law enforcement. Contempt is how judges keep people who ignored their orders in line. (3) Arpio showed zero remorse about flouting the orders of a judge and used his friendship with DJT to defeat a judicial order. And No, Dan McLaughlin's "but Dems would be okay with pardons to defeat a Republican judge" line does not hold water. He cited no actual Democrats for that. And his b-b-b-b-but imaginary Democrats whataboutism does not excuse DJT here. EDIT: if you seriously want to engage in a debate about the procedural questions about this pardon, please read this piece by Noah Feldman. B-b-b-b-but Antifa will not make DJT crippling the Judicial branch's power over law enforcement okay. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-08-23/arpaio-pardon-would-show-contempt-for-constitution That Bloomberg editorial is terrible. This opening paragraph is hyperbolic garbage: If President Donald Trump pardons Joe Arpaio, as he broadly hinted at during a rally Tuesday in Arizona, it would not be an ordinary exercise of the power -- it would be an impeachable offense. Arpaio, the former sheriff of Arizona’s Maricopa County, was convicted of criminal contempt of court for ignoring the federal judge’s order that he follow the U.S. Constitution in doing his job. For Trump to pardon him would be an assault on the federal judiciary, the Constitution and the rule of law itself. No where in his polemic rant does the author even come close to making the case that parson amounts to an impeachable offense. And his attempts at distinguishing the pardon of Arpaio on this point from other presidential pardons are utterly specious. Here, have it from Madison's mouth as to the importance of impeachment as a check on pardons. Madison's words put Apraio's birtherism spinning back in 2012 in a more sinister light. If DJT is going to use the pardon power to interrupt prosecutions of friends, yes, that is a real assault on Article III. Show nested quote +
In particular, Mason objected that “he may frequently pardon crimes that were advised by himself.” He complained, “If he has the power of granting pardons before indictment, or conviction, may he not stop inquiry and prevent detection?”
That seems like a formidable objection, but, as usual, James Madison, his fellow Virginian and the closest thing to the Constitution’s father, was one step ahead of him.
Gently, Madison pointed to “one security in this case to which gentlemen may not have adverted.” The security was that “if the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; (and) they can remove him if found guilty.” In Madison’s view, “This is a great security.”
Mason was focused on cases in which a president pardoned people for committing crimes that he himself “advised” (apparently in the sense of personally suggesting and helping to plan). More broadly, Madison urged that if the president was merely “connected, in any suspicious manner,” with someone who was engaged in wrongdoing, and if he decided to “shelter” (meaning pardon) him, then the president could be impeached.
http://cjonline.com/opinion/columns/2017-08-09/cass-sunstein-simple-answer-trump-pardon-question
I know I am probably cutting off Daunt but that Madison quote does not speak to the legality of pardoning ones friends but instead speaks to the legality of pardoning people for crimes you ordered them to commit. It basically says that there is recourse if the president decides to for example order a sheriff to start falsely arresting and beating people he disagrees with and then pardoning him for any crimes incurred during the arrest. THAT would be impeachable. However pardoning ones friends is not.
Edit: Yep I knew Daunt was on it.
|
On August 26 2017 12:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Trump, probably: "Well in the past two weeks, I've hated on blacks and Jews and the transgender community, so who else can I- oh yeah, fuck you, Latinos."
One could argue that Trump may have single handily lost the GOP the state of Arizona for a generation with this one move.
|
On August 26 2017 12:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Trump, probably: "Well in the past two weeks, I've hated on blacks and Jews and the transgender community, so who else can I- oh yeah, fuck you, Latinos."
Trump should now appoint Arpaio to chair his council on building the wall. Gotta double down on this shit!
|
On August 26 2017 12:45 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2017 12:41 Wulfey_LA wrote:On August 26 2017 12:33 xDaunt wrote:On August 26 2017 12:18 Wulfey_LA wrote:On August 26 2017 12:09 Danglars wrote:On August 26 2017 11:33 Wulfey_LA wrote:Anti-anti-Trumpers: when you spin for Trump, this is what you spin for: https://twitter.com/phoenixnewtimes/status/901263384087334914EDIT: next time you spin for Trump and put up some feeble 'b-b-b-b-but Antifa/Lynch/Lewinski" nonsense, ask yourself what you think about state violence in violation of the constitution. Clueless left wingers: Stop circling back to arguments like it's okay to punch a nazi or nazis don't get free speech. It makes you look bad. "This is what you spin for." Maybe you need to wake up to what it means to rarely support Trump and then sometimes find his attackers are just as idiotic and blind as he is. + Show Spoiler [pardon power] + So you are cool with sanctioning state violence in violation of the Constitution because it sticks it to the libs? Just make the pro-Trump argument here. Don't hide behind b-b-b-b-b-but Antifa exactly as I predicted. Also, I read Dan McLaughlin's thread. His first premise is "ignore the substance of the pardon", and then he proceeds to make a faulty procedural argument. First, I reject his premise entirely. The substance matters as shown in the thread you just quoted that I linked. Second, accepting his ludicrous "ignore the substance because Republicans are okay with this because it sticks it to the libs", he is wrong there too. In his entire thread he misses three key facts about this pardon: (1) This was pre-sentencing, and shortcircuited due process of law (2) This cut the legs out from judicial power over law enforcement. Contempt is how judges keep people who ignored their orders in line. (3) Arpio showed zero remorse about flouting the orders of a judge and used his friendship with DJT to defeat a judicial order. And No, Dan McLaughlin's "but Dems would be okay with pardons to defeat a Republican judge" line does not hold water. He cited no actual Democrats for that. And his b-b-b-b-but imaginary Democrats whataboutism does not excuse DJT here. EDIT: if you seriously want to engage in a debate about the procedural questions about this pardon, please read this piece by Noah Feldman. B-b-b-b-but Antifa will not make DJT crippling the Judicial branch's power over law enforcement okay. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-08-23/arpaio-pardon-would-show-contempt-for-constitution That Bloomberg editorial is terrible. This opening paragraph is hyperbolic garbage: If President Donald Trump pardons Joe Arpaio, as he broadly hinted at during a rally Tuesday in Arizona, it would not be an ordinary exercise of the power -- it would be an impeachable offense. Arpaio, the former sheriff of Arizona’s Maricopa County, was convicted of criminal contempt of court for ignoring the federal judge’s order that he follow the U.S. Constitution in doing his job. For Trump to pardon him would be an assault on the federal judiciary, the Constitution and the rule of law itself. No where in his polemic rant does the author even come close to making the case that parson amounts to an impeachable offense. And his attempts at distinguishing the pardon of Arpaio on this point from other presidential pardons are utterly specious. Here, have it from Madison's mouth as to the importance of impeachment as a check on pardons. Madison's words put Apraio's birtherism spinning back in 2012 in a more sinister light. If DJT is going to use the pardon power to interrupt prosecutions of friends, yes, that is a real assault on Article III.
In particular, Mason objected that “he may frequently pardon crimes that were advised by himself.” He complained, “If he has the power of granting pardons before indictment, or conviction, may he not stop inquiry and prevent detection?”
That seems like a formidable objection, but, as usual, James Madison, his fellow Virginian and the closest thing to the Constitution’s father, was one step ahead of him.
Gently, Madison pointed to “one security in this case to which gentlemen may not have adverted.” The security was that “if the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; (and) they can remove him if found guilty.” In Madison’s view, “This is a great security.”
Mason was focused on cases in which a president pardoned people for committing crimes that he himself “advised” (apparently in the sense of personally suggesting and helping to plan). More broadly, Madison urged that if the president was merely “connected, in any suspicious manner,” with someone who was engaged in wrongdoing, and if he decided to “shelter” (meaning pardon) him, then the president could be impeached.
http://cjonline.com/opinion/columns/2017-08-09/cass-sunstein-simple-answer-trump-pardon-question I know I am probably cutting off Daunt but that Madison quote does not speak to the legality of pardoning ones friends but instead speaks to the legality of pardoning people for crimes you ordered them to commit. It basically says that there is recourse if the president decides to for example order a sheriff to start falsely arresting and beating people he disagrees with and then pardoning him for any crimes incurred during the arrest. THAT would be impeachable. However pardoning ones friends is not. Edit: Yep I knew Daunt was on it.
Obama pardoned a lot of his drug dealing friends as well before he left, so trump doing it is legit. /s
|
On August 26 2017 12:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2017 12:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Trump, probably: "Well in the past two weeks, I've hated on blacks and Jews and the transgender community, so who else can I- oh yeah, fuck you, Latinos." One could argue that Trump may have single handily lost the GOP the state of Arizona for a generation with this one move.
I suspect that the GOP will do a pretty good job of distancing itself from Trump over the next 3 years and that any bad taste of Trump left in the mouths of Arizonians (or other red states, for that matter) won't be too much of a problem for Republicans. I doubt that even Trump would end up flipping certain states from red to blue for any period longer than perhaps the next senate/ presidential election or two... ten years from now, tops, it will be back to Republican.
|
On August 26 2017 12:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2017 12:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Trump, probably: "Well in the past two weeks, I've hated on blacks and Jews and the transgender community, so who else can I- oh yeah, fuck you, Latinos." One could argue that Trump may have single handily lost the GOP the state of Arizona for a generation with this one move.
Arizona has been trending blue for a while now. Trump may have done worse than his predecessors but it's been heading that direction for the past few decades.
|
I read Madison's words and I think they can stretch to cover these facts. I knew it wasn't quite a criminal association (but Manafort/Flynn/Page pardons, those will be on the nose for Madison's exact words). Pardoning Apraio is a direct attack on the ability of Article III judges to keep law enforcement in line. Arpaio willfully violated the orders of a Federal Judge and used state power to inflict violence in violation of that order. If Madison was concerned about President's pardoning their criminal associates and those that would implicate the President himself, then Madison certainly would also be concerned about pardoning friends (see, Birther posse) to flout Article III. Read the contempt finding here. There is a reason McCain is calling this an assault on the rule of law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
102
EPT
