- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 8/29/17 at 7:18 am to Loserman
Actually courts do have the power to enforce their decrees through their inherent contempt power. Trump's pardon of Arpaio directly challenges the court's contempt powers.
SCOTUS previously ruled pardoning contempt of court is within the president's power, so it seems highly unlikely this pardon could be overturned or be grounds for impeachment.
It is a strange pardon - although fits with Trump's viewpoint on power and politics. I can't see Reagan or the Bushes granting a similar pardon. They had a greater respect and understanding for the coequal branches of government. This would be akin to pardoning George Wallace for disobeying Brown v Board of Education -- had Wallace continued to defy the court instead of making his point and then accepting the judgment.
SCOTUS previously ruled pardoning contempt of court is within the president's power, so it seems highly unlikely this pardon could be overturned or be grounds for impeachment.
It is a strange pardon - although fits with Trump's viewpoint on power and politics. I can't see Reagan or the Bushes granting a similar pardon. They had a greater respect and understanding for the coequal branches of government. This would be akin to pardoning George Wallace for disobeying Brown v Board of Education -- had Wallace continued to defy the court instead of making his point and then accepting the judgment.
Posted on 8/29/17 at 7:27 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
I disagree with the pardon because of the message it sends,
I actually like the message it sends.
Now if there had been a jury trial and Arpiio found guilty then it would be slightly different. I don't know enough about the case to evaluate how pervasive the "profiling" was.
But for some judge to just announce that he is 'guilty' is the abomination to me. Wholesale pardons of these kinds of 'justices' would suit me just fine.
If you want to convict a person - then go to trial. simple as that.
Posted on 8/29/17 at 8:18 am to Rakim
Literally ANYTHING can be an impeachable offense since there is no legal definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors" , that's completely up to Congress, and there is no check on their authority in this matter.
Just as there is no check on the President's authority to pardon. NONE.
Liberalism is a brain disorder.
Just as there is no check on the President's authority to pardon. NONE.
Liberalism is a brain disorder.
Posted on 8/29/17 at 8:19 am to Rakim
quote:
Rakim
Got another one to send to the wall. Bag em and tag em sheriff joe!
Posted on 8/29/17 at 8:22 am to el Gaucho
quote:
Got another one to send to the wall. Bag em and tag em sheriff joe!
We don't send the earners to the wall lil Gaucho
Posted on 8/29/17 at 8:24 am to Volvagia
quote:
Why are people acting like Trump is the first president to pardon someone?
Because it sure as hell seems that way with this "overturning the rule of law" bullshite arguments.
Because the left base relies on emotional 20 year olds and dirt poor minorities
Posted on 8/29/17 at 8:28 am to SpringBokCock
quote:
This would be akin to pardoning George Wallace for disobeying Brown v Board of Education -- had Wallace continued to defy the court instead of making his point and then accepting the judgment
This would only be if Arpaio were still sheriff. He isn't.
Posted on 8/29/17 at 8:57 am to SpringBokCock
quote:
Actually courts do have the power to enforce their decrees through their inherent contempt power. Trump's pardon of Arpaio directly challenges the court's contempt powers.
No they don't. Think about this for a second and you will understand that the courts "power" is a paper dragon.
Even If the court finds someone in contempt they still require an executive branch who is willing to carry out the order of the court. The jails are run by executive branches not the judiciary.
The police are under the executive branches.
quote:
This would be akin to pardoning George Wallace for disobeying Brown v Board of Education -- had Wallace continued to defy the court instead of making his point and then accepting the judgment.
Terrible argument for you...
Brown vs Board of education was delivered in 1954.
It was for all practical purposes ignored until the early 1960s.
In your case of Wallace 1963, if Kennedy had not forced integration at Alabama by using the sword of the executive branch then Wallace would have successfully ignored it in that case also.
Again the courts can do nothing unless one of the other branches willingly supports the courts decision because they don't have power of the purse or sword.
Posted on 8/29/17 at 9:08 am to Loserman
quote:
Again the courts can do nothing unless one of the other branches willingly supports the courts decision because they don't have power of the purse or sword.
This is, of course, correct and although rare, there have been instances where the President just ignored the Supreme Court
Posted on 8/29/17 at 9:20 am to Rakim
Anyone who actually believes the crap in the OP is so retarded they should be sterilized for the benefit of society.
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News