34 total posts
(Page 1 of 2)
Arpaio vs Manning........no comparison in national security
Come the next election this episode of the comedy act will have been long forgotten.
Voters will base their vote on the propaganda their feed in the few weeks before the election.
The dems and the repubs know this very well.
Sadly,....a lot of truth in what you said.
Who wants to be president??
and I don't mean this like a take off on an old game show. They way our elected officials are treated both before and after they've run is a crime. I'm fine with well reasoned constructive criticism or expressions of disappointment but treating these people with downright meanness is no way to get good and decent people to come forward and vie for your vote. If the American people don't want a Looney Tunes lineup to choose from, they've got to start showing more respect for the candidates themselves and particularly the one chosen by the voters. I wasn't fond of either finalist this year but it was clear to me that a great number of folks wanted a big time change and were willing to take a huge risk in the process. Trump came out the winner and those who voted for him deserve whatever would come to them should he be allowed to proceed as he promised. We're not doing anything to encourage the next batch of would-be office seekers by bullying the incumbents or allowing our public media to do so.
The last election I came close to just sitting out.
The choice was bad and worse.
I held my nose and voted.
Glad to see you voted
for what you considered 'bad' (Trump) and not 'worse' (hilLIARy).....your 'nose holding' vote will actually pay off in the long run. Just give him some fair room to do it.
I'll just sit back and watch.
The comedy act that comes out of Washington and my state gov is often good for a laugh.
'Not even a fair trial' is somewhat severe, isn't it?
Some disagree. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-arpaio-idUSKCN1B701I And Reuters mentioned no unfairness in its background material.
The whole affair about the Sheriff's methods went on in open court for a long time. The crime for which he was convicted was failing to heed a judge's order, wasn't it? Didn't he disobey knowing the consequences?
I remember a couple of sayings from the old days. "Yes sir, no sir, no excuse sir" and "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime." Good, conservative adages. One is from the military, the other from criminal justice. Perhaps the Sheriff was ignorant of these.
In any case, aren't there bigger issues facing the US and other governments these days? Has the President yet filled all the vacant positions that would help him with these larger concerns?
Just a guess
I suspect that the way the sheriff thinks and the way Trumps thinks are a match.
Trump likes the guy for this reason.
Plus there's political points to be gained with the pardon.
For Trump the judicial system is just an annoying thing to be ignored.
I'm the boss.
Per the news agencies, he acted out of line with
the standards of his society of laws, not men.
A judge ordered him to stop; he didn't. Bad example for kiddies who want to be a policeman when they grow up.
Trump was well within his laws to grant the pardon. My reply to the OP was based on the lumping together of several groups in society as "weasels" based on one man's opinion of justice in one particular case.
OK, let's sort out the latest fine mess
my dumb phone got me into.
The reply I just posted was meant for Steven. "His crime ..."
Bob, I think it's been clear for some time that Trump is still using his business mentality. He did campaign on something like that i believe. He does also lack the same understanding of governmental checks and balances that "politicians" acquire on their way up. [Law and History majors in college, and the like.]
The President is absolutely in charge of his pardons. Many times they had a political point and sometimes that hurt the President's party. AFAIK it can never hurt the President. Rarely will one such act cause a defeat for re-election, e.g.
His crime (as I understand it)
was to allow "profiling" as a way to filter out possible suspects for further questioning in regards to their legal status in his jurisdiction. Thus, if you were more brown skinned and spoke Spanish, you got more scrutiny than if you had a Nordic appearance or a Texas drawl. What the sheriff thought was the use of common sense is what the judge deemed to be illegal. Common sense is something our laws no longer allow.
OK, Steven, back to you. [This is Steven, right?]
Profiling is a legitimate, a necessary police tool. Based on a description from a victim, the police will go looking for only men, no women. Waste of time otherwise.
What is going on now is not that at all. Claims are being made that Arpaio-style profiling is targeting minorities. Evidence from street, car and lapel cameras seems to support this. Autopsy reports seem to support this.
I have no idea how to address the issue, much less how to solve it. [Jehovah does, and will.] In the meantime, a sitting judge found evidence of lawbreaking and acted on it. Like all the rest of who don't go to work with a badge and gun, the Sheriff has an appeals process open to him. Shouldn't a patriotic, law-abiding person go through that process?
Well....I'm wrong about the crime
He was jailed for contempt of court only and it was reported that an appeal was pending at the time of the pardon. My only defense is that I'm a victim of media overload on this case. I've read too much from too many sources. I should just stick to one source that limits details and always shares my opinion rather than bother with any others.
Illegal Immigrants, south of the border...
....should they be stopping mostly Nordic blondes with blue eyes? Be serious, they will stop and check out those who look like border runners. In Florida, if you are looking to find pythons and remove them, you aren't stopping to grab garter snakes and check them out. Profiling works, and THAT'S what really pisses off the Left.
Profiling can be misused.
That's why it's controversial. That's why judges are increasingly likely to stop extreme cases of it, and of deportation, at least temporarily, while society works out just what to do about it.
Judges, Presidents and sheriffs are subject to aforementioned checks and balances. The people are not. They can amend even national constitutions. When that happens you'll know. Until then, Federal laws give even illegal aliens some rights, which a judge would be obligated to rule upon.
When a judge's ruling violates or...
....interfere with a country's laws, do you consider it wrong when a patriot stands up to the judge and instead follows the law? What he should have done was file an appeal for an injunction against the lower court's order and when granted, continue as previous. I'm glad Trump rescued him from the lawless appointee of Obama.
'The patriot followed the law'
is what was being decided, wasn't it? The judge is qualified to uphold the law. If he's wrong, the appellate courts say so. John Brown and Henry Thoreau [who greatly admired Brown] were among many Americans who chose civil disobedience in the US. They both paid penalties for it. If Arpaio was another such then he was following their pattern successfully, wasn't he? On his way to jail, possibly; waiting for appeal. Why is he a "martyr" for that?
Acts chapter 16
Magistrates, aka judges, in Thyatira. Do you support them, or the Apostles, who ignored the unrighteous judge's orders?
16And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying: 17The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation. 18And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour.
19And when her masters saw that the hope of their gains was gone, they caught Paul and Silas, and drew them into the marketplace unto the rulers, 20And brought them to the magistrates, saying, These men, being Jews, do exceedingly trouble our city, 21And teach customs, which are not lawful for us to receive, neither to observe, being Romans.
22And the multitude rose up together against them: and the magistrates rent off their clothes, and commanded to beat them. 23And when they had laid many stripes upon them, they cast them into prison, charging the jailor to keep them safely: 24Who, having received such a charge, thrust them into the inner prison, and made their feet fast in the stocks.
... and lo! an orange angel released them ...
RE:an orange angel
RE: threw open prison cells and turned them loose?
threw open prison cells and turned them loose?
At least they served SOME time in jail.....
pardoning Arpaio when the man wasn't even given a fair trial
Pardoned for something he hadn't even been "sentenced" for....
What's next?....Mueller will have his day...then TheRUMP will "pardon" the perps?
Don't think HE isn't scheming way to get rid of Mueller.
Just ONE step away from being a dictator(above the law)?
HE must be jealous of the North Korean nutbar.....
They both have more in common than either will admit?
Trump is a boss.
He can not tolerate criticism or people not following his orders.
I would not be surprised if Mueller finds the Trump empire is eyeball deep in Russian money.
He actually WASN'T given a fair trial
He had a legal right to and asked for a jury trial, but the liberal JUDGE REFUSED it.....so WHO REALLY broke the law here? The ELECTED sheriff or the APPOINTED judge? Another case of judicial partisanship, IMO.
RE:He had a legal right to and asked for a jury trial,
HE "Asked" AND THEY "Answered"...
Why was Sheriff Joe Arpaio denied a jury trial?
Although the Sixth Amendment says the accused shall have a right to a jury trial “in all criminal prosecutions,” in 1968 the Supreme Court decided that “all” meant only “all serious” criminal prosecutions. The Supreme Court’s rationale was that at the time of the passage of the Bill of Rights, “petty” crimes did not warrant a jury trial and therefore the Framers of the Constitution could not have literally meant “all” when they wrote the Sixth Amendment.
Two years later, the Supreme Court confirmed that a “serious” (non-”petty”) criminal prosecution is one in which the accused faced a potential sentence of incarceration for greater than six months.
Thus, because the maximum Arpaio faced for contempt was exactly six months and not greater than six months, he was not granted a jury trial. There are some who argue that “all” means all and the Supreme Court’s arbitrary six month line is not Constitutional.
THEN the wanna' be dictator stepped in.
YOU get a jury trial!!!!.......YOU get a jury trial!!!!!!!!....EVERYONE gets a jury trial!!!!!!!.....
THAT could put a serious drain on the justice system.......
The ONLY "fair trial" is a "Jury Trial"?
Then why do some ELECT to have a trial by Judge Alone?
I think you're right
and wonder if he could have negotiated a deal to have Judge Judy take the case.
RE:if he could have negotiated a deal to have Judge Judy
if he could have negotiated a deal to have Judge Judy take the case.
only IF TheRUMP could appear as a "witness"....never let an opportunity to be in the public eye go to waste.
"Pardoned for something he hadn't even been "sentenced" for"
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 2)