OT: Excerpt from the Constitution

Good grief no, a law degree in the 2000s is a ticket to the unemployment line. If I wanted to not be able to find a good job in a field I could've just majored in graphic - it wouldn't cost anywhere near the $250,000 3 years at e.g. Suffolk Law costs nowadays and at least I would've learned a valuable skill.

Graphic Design

Incompetent attorneys don't really survive in New England. A friend of mine from high school who's an attorney in private practice made a pretty nice income stream for a few years via bilking the Church of Scientology - they love to sue everyone under the sun for libel, but they don't love it so much when a good attorney shows up to get their cases dismissed as frivolous/suppressive and have to cough up equitable remedy.

And yeah, they send the goon squad in black suits with cameras to follow attorneys around who take on defendant's cases

The judge (G. Murray Snow) was appointed by George W. Bush.

Contempt of court is apparently not a 'real' enough offense to bother our president, and Joe Arpaio was an early political endorser of the Trump campaign. Joe bent the law, violated a court order, and was pardoned, as the French say,

"pour encourager les autres".

it might just be an entertaining rant, but this tell a somewhat different story of the whole kerfuffle

I've offered repeatedly to ship all those illegals to Mass2shits, but no takers.

Though I do note I spooked a few of them at a Long Island Extended Stay America hotel by speaking to the maids in "Spanish" ;-) ...Jim Thompson

ve

ES

OF

..

most Americans. You however seem to bow to an extreme-right ideology.

d their disapproval of Trump's pardon, they are somehow backstabbing, trait orous people. He pardoned a person who willfully ignored a judge's orders. I don't care who appointed him; a judge follows the law, and what this gu y was doing was essentially racial profiling.

The judge didn't follow the law, as they often don't. They're political appointees, and pay no price for making political judgements.

Arpaio was enforcing federal immigration law, like he's supposed to--under the Constitution's supremacy clause, federal law has priority.

Arpaio was right, the judge was wrong.

Lots of these judges should be removed, frankly.

Cheers, James Arthur

the

ed

tive

EVES

S OF

t...

ct most Americans. You however seem to bow to an extreme-right ideology.

ced their disapproval of Trump's pardon, they are somehow backstabbing, tra itorous people. He pardoned a person who willfully ignored a judge's order s. I don't care who appointed him; a judge follows the law, and what this guy was doing was essentially racial profiling.

Ask any right-winger, when a judge makes a decision they don't like. Sudden ly the right-winger knows more about the law than any judge ...

Not an argument that court found remotely convincing, if it was ever put fo rward.

Let's just say the judge wasn't far-right enough to keep James Arthur happy .

And given doses of castor oil to purify their thinking. Mussolini found it effective, and James Arthur is great believer in historical precedent.

Sounds like a second trial by jury would be required. Same as if you murdered your lawyer during your first murder trial.

Umm... yeah, like when Joe was on trial, and the judge found that the detectives stalking his wife were hired by Joe... and Joe's lawyer, to remain ethically pure, decided h e had to quit (and never have to appear in THAT judge's court again).

That was when Joe called a press conference to reveal... that he still thought Obama's birth was...

There's never a foulup so great, that you can't give the press a sideshow to distract 'em. Trump pardoning Joe, is the sideshow appointed for this week, courtesy of the Donald.

the

ed

tive

EVES

S OF

t...

ct most Americans. You however seem to bow to an extreme-right ideology.

ced their disapproval of Trump's pardon, they are somehow backstabbing, tra itorous people. He pardoned a person who willfully ignored a judge's order s. I don't care who appointed him; a judge follows the law, and what this guy was doing was essentially racial profiling.

LOL are you serious? Judges often don't follow the law? They're one of th e three branches of government intended to keep the others in check, and th eir job is to interpret the law. Sounds like you want everyone to bow to D ictator Trump.

Yeah if I was ordered by a federal judge to stop doing something, I'd just keep doing it without going through proper legal procedures.

It doesn't matter if he was. That's not how the legal system works. An in dividual doesn't get to simply decide for themselves if they want to obey a n injunction or not.

....and make a lot of Trump clones to replace them. That should be fun.

Nope! Judges are to conduct courts in such a fashion as to guarantee that the proceedings follow what is Constitutionally required.

Appellate courts review lower court decisions for the same reason.

SCOTUS is the ultimate reviewer.

Judges are NOT supposed to exercise opinion or "interpret"... they are to follow the law... period!

Any judge _making_ law should be impeached. ...Jim Thompson

He was "enforcing federal law" by violating federal law, i.e. he approved the search and detention of legal US residents without warrants and without legal justification.

Joe's conviction was political, just as Hillary's non-conviction was political. Mikek

Maybe so. But Arpaio was additionally an unabashedly toxic bully that treated plenty of people like shit besides illegal immigrants. And the thing about the real world and real politics is that it's comprised of real people who tend to hold grudges - hiding behind the law will only take you as far as there's anyone to back you up.

Joe and Hillary got lucky; Hillary because on average people probably just liked her better, and Joe because there is for the moment at least one bully more powerful than he who found him momentarily useful.

That is to say, are you usually looking for "justice" for your favorite player who's playing the game at that level? Ha ha ha, oh, honey. All convictions or non-convictions at that level are "political."

ote:

al

the three branches of government intended to keep the others in check, and their job is to interpret the law.

You sure are radical. The only reason this came up is because you're tryin g to defend the pardon of this AZ sheriff, who di. If this involved some D emocrat you'd be all for throwing the book at them and not talking about im peaching judges.

There is no judge "making" law. What do you think they do, create a law an d put it on stone tablets and place it outside the courthouse? Laws don't always apply cleanly to every case, hence the reason for interpreting it to apply it the specific case at hand. Interpretation is not necessarily the same as opinion.

"The judiciary (also known as the judicial system or court system) is the s ystem of courts that interprets and applies the law in the name of the stat e."

As for sheriff Joe, he's guilty of contempt of court:

"Contempt of court, often referred to simply as "contempt", is the offense of being disobedient to or discourteous towards a court of law and its offi cers in the form of behavior that opposes or defies the authority, justice and dignity of the court"

He disobeyed judge's orders. That's not up for discussion. Whether the in junction was right or not is beside the point. He INTENTIONALLY DISOBEYED an injunction and that's illegal.

Now quit making things up.

Perfect!