The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: dutch508 on August 29, 2017, 11:48:51 PM
-
Star Member Judi Lynn (115,002 posts) https://www.democraticunderground.com/10141855695
Judge won't vacate Arpaio's contempt conviction without oral arguments
Source: The Arizona Republic
USA TODAY NETWORK
Michael Kiefer and Yvonne Wingett Sanchez, The Arizona Republic
Published 10:43 p.m. ET Aug. 29, 2017 | Updated 10:44 p.m. ET Aug. 29, 2017
PHOENIX — U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton canceled former Sheriff Joe Arpaio's upcoming sentencing hearing for his criminal contempt-of-court conviction, telling attorneys not to file replies to motions that were pending before Arpaio’s recent presidential pardon.
However, Bolton on Tuesday stopped short of throwing out the conviction based solely on Arpaio's request. Instead she ordered Arpaio and the U.S. Department of Justice, which is prosecuting the case, to file briefs on why she should or shouldn't grant Arpaio's request.
. . .
Bolton has scheduled oral arguments on the matter for Oct. 4, the day before Arpaio was supposed to be sentenced.
There is case law that says a pardon implies an admission of guilt, and that will have to be argued in open court.
Read more: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/08/29/judge-wont-vacate-arpaios-contempt-conviction-without-oral-arguments/615146001/
:thatsright:
Star Member dflprincess (22,449 posts)
1. Arpaio has admitted guilt by accepting the pardon why is the court's time being wasted with this?
They should just shoot him already! [/DU]
Not Ruth (1,403 posts)
3. I read elsewhere on DU that admitting guilt by accepting the pardon is not a real thing
it depends on if you are a [D] or not.
Star Member More_Cowbell (377 posts)
4. It's undecided
Wikipedia has a short but useful discussion on Burdick v. United States, which is the case people are thinking about when they talk about acceptance of a pardon as an admission of guilt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burdick_v._United_States
The two passages in the case that I assume people see as supporting this argument are these: "confession of guilt implied in the acceptance of a pardon may be rejected" and "The latter [pardon] carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it."
The reason why this issue is undecided is because this wasn't the issue facing the court. The court was considering the effect of an unaccepted pardon. So the above statements, even though they're part of the opinion, are what's called "dicta"-- language that the court said but that was not necessary to decide the issue before it. Another court can choose to accept it or not. Dicta has no precedential value, though sometimes it's used to support an argument in a later case.
It's a short opinion, in case anyone's interested in reading it: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/236/79.html
It could be that this judge will be the start of a line of cases considering this issue that will, I'm sure, end up at the Supreme Court.
I'm thinking that Manning might just go back to prison...
-
DU-folks playing fantasy Word :jerkit: Games.
Here's two realities:
* Obama's railroad ended in a wreck;
* Joe Arpaio walks away from the wreck, free.
-
Judge won't vacate Arpaio's contempt conviction without oral arguments
Here is the argument: Sit down and STFU.
-
Let me see if I understand the situation:
Congress passes laws defining what is or is not illegal immigration.
Criminal aliens ignore the law.
The prior president ignores the law.
Sheriff Joe enforces the law.
Judge holds Arpaio in contempt for enforcing the law.
Trump uses his lawful power to pardon Arpaio.
Judge wants to ignore the pardon.
If the Left is so determined to nullify the law based on their political preferences why are we obligated to obey them and the laws they want?
-
Let me see if I understand the situation:
Congress passes laws defining what is or is not illegal immigration.
Criminal aliens ignore the law.
The prior president ignores the law.
Sheriff Joe enforces the law.
You nailed it. 100%
Judge holds Arpaio in contempt for enforcing the law.
Trump uses his lawful power to pardon Arpaio.
Judge wants to ignore the pardon.
If the Left is so determined to nullify the law based on their political preferences why are we obligated to obey them and the laws they want?
-
Honestly, I hope she "resists". If she isn't thrown out, her action will force on her a choice between recusing herself from similar cases or having decisions overturned based on demonstrated prejudice. If judges like her indulge their prejudices in court, they need to face consequences.
-
Star Member Judi Lynn (115,002 posts) https://www.democraticunderground.com/10141855695
Judge won't vacate Arpaio's contempt conviction without oral arguments
OK dummie, I ain't no lawyer... but doesn't a pardon mean that the conviction is vacated irregardless of the court's opinion on it?
The court has absolutely no say. The conviction, after the pardon, no longer exists.
Or am I missing something here? :shrug:
-
OK dummie, I ain't no lawyer... but doesn't a pardon mean that the conviction is vacated irregardless of the court's opinion on it?
The court has absolutely no say. The conviction, after the pardon, no longer exists.
Or am I missing something here? :shrug:
Does a presidential pardon expunge or erase the conviction for which the pardon was granted?
No. Expungement is a judicial remedy that is rarely granted by the court and cannot be granted within the Department of Justice or by the President.
Please also be aware that if you were to be granted a presidential pardon, the pardoned offense would not be removed from your criminal record. Instead, both the federal conviction as well as the pardon would both appear on your record. However, a pardon will facilitate removal of legal disabilities imposed because of the conviction, and should lessen to some extent the stigma arising from the conviction.
https://www.justice.gov/pardon/frequently-asked-questions-concerning-executive-clemency#18
-
This bit of news (https://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2017/10/judge-accepts-trump-pardon-arpaio/) should PO a few DU-folk.
-
This bit of news (https://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2017/10/judge-accepts-trump-pardon-arpaio/) should PO a few DU-folk.
From the link:
Several liberal groups and a set of more than 30 Democratic members of Congress had argued that Trump’s pardon was invalid and Bolton should ignore it.
???
We are going to have to end up putting them in camps. They are leaving us no choice.
-
Several liberal groups and a set of more than 30 Democratic members of Congress had argued that Trump’s pardon was invalid and Bolton should ignore it.
Maybe (miss-)Judge Bolton decided it was more important to her to not be thrown off the bench and disbarred than it was to try to make a few lefty idiots happy.