Posted on 04/18/2018 3:31:58 PM PDT by jazusamo
Dissenting judge on panel worries ruling could foster ‘inappropriate… political attacks’ on presidency
A federal appeals court said this week it will appoint a lawyer to argue that former Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s contempt of court conviction should remain on his record despite President Trump’s pardon.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that since the federal Justice Department is supporting both the pardon and Mr. Arpaio’s request to have his conviction stricken, someone else needs to argue the other side.
Mr. Arpaio argues that the pardon came before he had a chance to appeal his conviction, and even before the federal district judge in the case had a chance to rule on his request that it be set aside. The former Maricopa County sheriff’s opponents had said not only should the conviction stand, but the pardon should be deemed invalid because it subverted the justice system.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
I didn’t say the conviction never happened. It means the crime never did.
I don’t get it. Presidential pardon. Done. Everyone gets to pick up their toys and go home as the party’s over with. Sheriff Joe doesn’t get the conviction stricken, it’s pardoned and done with. Appeals end, it’s been pardoned.
And FFS, OF COURSE IT SUBVERTS THE JUSTICE SYSTEM. Read the constitution, that’s EXACTLY what it does. It says sit down, shut up, it’s over with.
No one to argue the other side of the case... There ISN’T a case to argue. The presidential pardon overrules ALL except a congressional treason trial or similar impeachment proceedings. The envy of the court over presidential powers is certainly reaching astronomical levels...
That isn't correct either.
... In 1915, the Supreme Court indeed said, of pardons, that “acceptance” carries “a confession of” guilt. Burdick v. United States (1915). Other courts have echoed that since...
“Wasn’t Nixon granted a pardon without being charged for anything?”
yes. and he was pardoned for anything and everything that may have been a crime prior to the date of the pardon.
[ DJT should pardon Sheriff Joe.
If it comes to that. ]
You mean AGAIN!
Maybe under the rule of law...but that only exists is history.
i hate the 9th circus
“Where’s congress? ”
i’ve been asking that for 15 months now
We had a Lefty on the Free Republic board back in 1997 who argued that no one in the Clinton administration had been convicted of a felony, unlike the previous Republican administrations.
She was still correct about that when Rapin Bill Clinton left office.
Bush got in - Scooter Libby, "felon".
Zerobama got in? Multiple felonies, no prosecutions or convictions.
But Enemies of the Zero, Dinesh D'Souza and James O'Keefe get prosecuted and convicted.
Trump gets in? Felony convictions.
Are you beginning to see a pattern here?
“Accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt. “
Idiot. NO, it does not.
haven’t read all of the comments yet, but has anybody asked just how a Court of Appeals has the constitutional authority to appoint a Special Counsel?
Stop wasting our tax dollars, you traitors.
Will these black-robed tyrants ever be held to account?
I know, don’t hold my breath.
Interesting article on the subject here: https://reason.com/volokh/2017/08/26/is-accepting-a-pardon-an-admis
As with most legal rulings, the issue seems to be “complicated.”
It sure seems so, these turkeys even admitted there is no precedent for this.
Absolutely, Joe Arpaio is an honorable man and that's why leftists hate him so much.
Not necessarily.
A Pardon is NOT the same as a Clemency Petition:
A pardon is meant to indicate forgiveness of a particular crime, either because a person was wrongfully convicted or the punishment was not appropriate for the crime committed. A commutation is a merciful act offered when it is determined that the penalty given was too harsh. Pardon Vs Clemency
thank you my FRiend, for bringing that salient point up. If a repub is running for re-election, what they've done to do this, is a good question for them to answer. And if running as a freshman, we want to know what they are going to do, too.
That's what stood out for me when first reading the article:
The 9th Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, acknowledged there’s no precedent for what it’s doing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.