Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Arpaio was given an order by the court. Arpaio may have thought the order was wrong, but that does not entitle him to disobey the court order. He was a law officer whose obligation was to uphold and to OBEY the law. He didn't. He was prosecuted for disobeying the law. He was found guilty. The President has pardoned him, which he certainly is empowered to do. The problem is not with the pardon, but with the President saying that Arpaio was just doing his job. Arpaio's job was not to defy court orders. And the President should understand that.
Finally, an intelligent response from the opposition side.
Trumps comments though are somewhat understandable, even if ill thought out, or not at all thought out. For those who feel that illegal immigration is out of control, having a federal judge instruct a LEO to NOT enforce , or aid in enforcing, US law seems strange. Telling a LEO that even if you make a legit traffic stop, legitimately discover that the person or persons are illegally in the country, that if they have not committed any other crime than the crime of illegally entering the country that you must let them go seems strange in the extreme. We pay at least 2 federal agencies to detain these very people, and then a judge instructs a LEO agency to release these people even when it is fairly certain that they are the very people the federal agencies exist to apprehend . There is certainly room to think such a ruling is fairly nonsensical, especially if you live in an area strongly affected by illegal aliens.
This is not what Arpaio was convicted of. Pay attention. His conviction was for disobeying a judges orders, specifically a judge named Murray Snow, not Brnovich.
The contempt order was all about violating the 4th amendment rights of the people detained.
From the contempt order:
Judge Snow’s preliminary injunction spelled out that detaining those persons past the time sufficient to conduct a criminal investigation was a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights and that Defendant had to cease the practice immediately.
...This meant, in effect, that MCSO officers were required by Defendant to detain persons not suspected of any crime for the additional hour and 15 minutes to hour and 30 minutes it took to deliver the detainees to the nearest Border Patrol station, Casa Grande in Pinal County. (Trial Tr. Day 3-PM 705:4-11.) These detentions, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, were exactly what the preliminary injunction intended to stop.
Order makes clear that the Sheriff did not have “inherent authority” to investigate civil immigration violations. In his discussion of law enforcement officers’ obligation to comply with an individual’s constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment,
Finally, an intelligent response from the opposition side.
Trumps comments though are somewhat understandable, even if ill thought out, or not at all thought out. For those who feel that illegal immigration is out of control, having a federal judge instruct a LEO to NOT enforce , or aid in enforcing, US law seems strange. Telling a LEO that even if you make a legit traffic stop, legitimately discover that the person or persons are illegally in the country, that if they have not committed any other crime than the crime of illegally entering the country that you must let them go seems strange in the extreme. We pay at least 2 federal agencies to detain these very people, and then a judge instructs a LEO agency to release these people even when it is fairly certain that they are the very people the federal agencies exist to apprehend . There is certainly room to think such a ruling is fairly nonsensical, especially if you live in an area strongly affected by illegal aliens.
You apparently have no conception of what the role of officials in the executive branch of government is. Simply put: Its to faithfully execute the laws of the land.
In fact, virtually every executive official takes an oath of office requiring him/her to "faithfully execute the laws of his state/country".
The laws of the land are interpreted by courts, by judges. Neither a sheriff nor another executive official has the right to interpret the law. Its been this way in America for over 200 years.
In this case, the courts ruled that a practice being conducted by the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office was illegal and an order was issued to that office to refrain from that practice. Arpaio willfully disobeyed that law. A proper course of action would have been obeying the court's ruling, but appealing the decision. Arpaio didn't do that.
This is really basic to our system. When a public official willfully disobeys a court order it MUST be addressed. Our system depends on it. The whole edifice comes crashing down if executive officials believe they can ignore court rulings.
Trump's pardon is disgraceful. He has behaved in a lawless manner. He is literally giving a green light to people to disobey court rulings they don't like. His actions are not acceptable.
Arpaio was given an order by the court. Arpaio may have thought the order was wrong, but that does not entitle him to disobey the court order. He was a law officer whose obligation was to uphold and to OBEY the law. He didn't. He was prosecuted for disobeying the law. He was found guilty. The President has pardoned him, which he certainly is empowered to do. The problem is not with the pardon, but with the President saying that Arpaio was just doing his job. Arpaio's job was not to defy court orders. And the President should understand that.
this was a civil disobedience.....that's why it's a misdemeanor (civil) , not a felony, that's why he was not given a trial by jury. If the Obama administration had a case they would have charge him and giving him a trial by jury but that wasn't their intent.
MLK and the Civil Rights movement disobeyed the law, courts and the police orders many times, it was a civil disobedience.
Trump and many believe the charges against him was political by the Obama administration. Obama's justice department charged him weeks before the election in Arizona making this so obvious.
Finally, an intelligent response from the opposition side.
Trumps comments though are somewhat understandable, even if ill thought out, or not at all thought out. For those who feel that illegal immigration is out of control, having a federal judge instruct a LEO to NOT enforce , or aid in enforcing, US law seems strange. Telling a LEO that even if you make a legit traffic stop, legitimately discover that the person or persons are illegally in the country, that if they have not committed any other crime than the crime of illegally entering the country that you must let them go seems strange in the extreme. We pay at least 2 federal agencies to detain these very people, and then a judge instructs a LEO agency to release these people even when it is fairly certain that they are the very people the federal agencies exist to apprehend . There is certainly room to think such a ruling is fairly nonsensical, especially if you live in an area strongly affected by illegal aliens.
The federal judge's ORDER was in accordance with the law. Immigration is a federal matter, and the court's ruling followed that line of reasoning. Arpaio's authority did not supersede that of a federal judge. Arpaio disobeyed a direct court order. If he wanted to challenge that court order, the place for such challenges are in appeals courts. A LEO isn't entitled to ignore a court order. A LEO is obligated to obey a court order, to uphold the law.
In this case, the courts ruled that a practice being conducted by the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office was illegal and an order was issued to that office to refrain from that practice. Arpaio willfully disobeyed that law. A proper course of action would have been obeying the court's ruling, but appealing the decision. Arpaio didn't do that.
This is really basic to our system. When a public official willfully disobeys a court order it MUST be addressed. Our system depends on it. The whole edifice comes crashing down if executive officials believe they can ignore court rulings.
Trump's pardon is disgraceful. He has behaved in a lawless manner. He is literally giving a green light to people to disobey court rulings they don't like. His actions are not acceptable.
if what the Sheriff did was illegal, why only contempt which is a misdemeanor, not a felony?
if the practices of the sheriff were unconstitutional and illegal why not charge him with felony charges and have a trial by jury?
if this is all you have a civil disobedience of the court then the Obama administration wasted taxpayers dollars investigating this case which looks now more political.
this was a civil disobedience.....that's why it's a misdemeanor (civil) , not a felony, that's why he was not given a trial by jury. If the Obama administration had a case they would have charge him and giving him a trial by jury but that wasn't their intent.
MLK and the Civil Rights movement disobeyed the law, courts and the police orders many times, it was a civil disobedience.
Trump and many believe the charges against him was political by the Obama administration. Obama's justice department charged him weeks before the election in Arizona making this so obvious.
It's not civil disobedience when Arpaio claims innocence. Civil disobedience is knowingly breaking the law, and accepting, in full, the consequences of breaking the law in order to draw attention to a flawed law.
The federal judge's ORDER was in accordance with the law. Immigration is a federal matter, and the court's ruling followed that line of reasoning. Arpaio's authority did not supersede that of a federal judge. Arpaio disobeyed a direct court order. If he wanted to challenge that court order, the place for such challenges are in appeals courts. A LEO isn't entitled to ignore a court order. A LEO is obligated to obey a court order, to uphold the law.
one more time, why didn't the government charged him criminally and have a trial by jury?...........if all you have is civil disobedience of the judge then the government doesn't have much of a case.
explain why hasn't the government charged him with felony crimes and have a trial by jury after all this smoke of all the things he did (allegedly)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
