General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJudge 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 cant use the pardon power to immunize lawless officials from consequences for violating peoples constitutional rights. This contrasts with his lawyers arguments that The presidents 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 Presidents 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 presidents 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 Amendments Equal Protection Clause.
Similarly, they argue, Trump cannot use pardons to undercut a courts power to protect people from being denied their Due Process rights by immunizing otherwise unlawful acts like Arpaios. It contends that the president cannot be allowed to weaponize the pardon power to circumvent the judiciarys ability to enforce and protect constitutional rights.
more
https://lawnewz.com/high-profile/judge-considers-defying-trump-over-arpaio-pardon/
Eliot Rosewater
(31,112 posts)a pile of human filth to occupy the WH.
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,640 posts)Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)ProudLib72
(17,984 posts)canetoad
(17,169 posts)Isn't the pardon moot too? Then it's right back to the start and Arpaio can be prosecuted.
Beausoleil
(2,843 posts)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)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.