Is Trump's pardon of Arpaoi a presidential endorsement of racism and contempt of the law and the constitution ?

@EarthlingWise Warrior, Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian, they all need a constitution :p

@EarthlingWise The Constitution is fine, this had nothing to do with the US Constitution at all.

@nudistsueaz It has everything to do with the constitution and subverting the judicial process.

A sheriff has to enforce the law. Arpaio violated the 4th and 14th Amendments.

@RodionRomanovitch It does but not by Arpaio

@RodionRomanovitch Any time a presidential pardon is used, it subverts the judicial process. That's basically the point.

@QuixoticSoul eh, most ppl pardoned are required to own their criminality first, and to apologize, to seem worthy.

@QuixoticSoul Pardons are given after sentencing and time served not before.

@nudistsueaz Try reading the question again .... we are talking about Trump.

@firefall I don't believe there is anything like a requirement about this. Did Chelsea Manning ever apologize and own her criminality?

@EarthlingWise I don't know how long you have lived in Arizona or Maricopa County. But they did traffic stops, just checking for DUI's or impaired drivers. To the best of my knowledge no homes were ever raided. Most people were arrested after concerned citizens called the County and ask why nothing was being done about people being her illegality. Then the Sheriff's office responded. Like they would with any normal complaint.

@nudistsueaz In 2011, an investigation by the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division found that Arpaio’s sheriff’s department engaged in egregious racial profiling in its traffic stops and discrimination in its jailing practices. In Maricopa County, Latino drivers were four to nine times more likely to be stopped than “similarly situated non-Latino drivers,” and about a fifth of traffic stops, most of which involved Latino drivers, violated Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable seizures. Sheriff’s department officers punished Latino inmates who had difficulty understanding orders in English by locking down their pods, putting them in solitary confinement, and refusing to replace their soiled sheets and clothes. The investigation found that sheriff’s department officers addressed Latino inmates as “wetbacks,” “Mexican bitches,” “fucking Mexicans,” and “stupid Mexicans.”

@QuixoticSoul commutations and pardons are usually given after the criminal has already done some jail time. And in every case it does send a clear message about the president's moral standards.

@RodionRomanovitch The president is not bound by those guidelines - they exist for people who [i]petition[/i] for a pardon.

The only real requirement is conviction, sentencing doesn't have to happen.

@QuixoticSoul So there's plenty of instances of presidential pardons before even a day has been served in prison then presumably ?

@RodionRomanovitch Probably not, why does that matter? Presidential powers of pardon are extremely broad. Waiting is just traditional - like issuing a bunch of pardons upon leaving office.

Certainly, nobody is denying that this pardon is unusual. But it's almost certainly legal.

The big wrinkle here is that Trump used a constitutional power to block a Federal's judge's attempt to enforce the constitution. That is the big deal here. The fact that Arpaio hasn't been sentenced is just a footnote, really.

@QuixoticSoul no, there is no stipulated requirement for that, it's merely - like most of the former american political system - an implicit agreement. And like most of the former american political system, it's now been decisively smashed.

@QuixoticSoul 'The big wrinkle here is that Trump used a constitutional power to block a Federal's judge's attempt to enforce the constitution. That is the big deal here.' .... yup that's the crux of it , and the central thrust of my question.

@RodionRomanovitch That, though, has a lot more to do with the nature of charges against the former Sheriff than it does with the details of timing of the pardon.

@RodionRomanovitch The issue is he shouldn't have been charged in the first place.....end of story.

@nudistsueaz Well he did flagrantly violate the court order. Rule of law breaks down when people are allowed to do it and get away with that.

@QuixoticSoul Your right about that and the people here illegality flagrantly violated the law, plan & simple. Like Joe said for years, if they don't like me enforcing the laws, change the laws. He couldn't pick the laws he like and just follow them. Many in DC did that but no one cares.

@nudistsueaz The federal court, with its injunction, changed the law. That's what those courts do. By his words, that should have been enough. Then they issued a direct injunction. And then they enforced its violation via their power to charge someone with criminal contempt of court. They can't enforce the laws, not their jobs, But they do enforce their injunctions.

What someone does, or does not do in DC, was not related to any of this.

@QuixoticSoul Wrong, no laws were changed. Just a judge offering his opinion on the law, the laws were never changed. Do you live in Arizona?

@nudistsueaz A judicial ruling is not exactly an opinion, as we tend to use the word in common parlance. It is not a suggestion. A judge cannot rewrite the laws, not their purview. But they can block laws, in whole or in part. The Feds blocked parts of SB 1070, which resulted in this whole hoopla.

I do not live in Arizona. But I am reasonably familiar with how the process of judicial review works.