The Constitution also creates courts that are allowed to interpret the Constitution per Marbury v. Madison. It seems you do not respect courts which have Article III powers and have decided a jury trial did not exist for a contempt crime. Why do you only like part of the Constitution?
Trump pardoned (and exonerated) the racist, law-breaking disgraced convicted former sheriff to please the white supremacist part of his base. He made the transgender ban official to please the homophobic evangelist part of his base. In doing so he totally disrespected law enforcement and the military, the two institutions he claims to support. Like every Trump claim, a lie. Trump supports his ego and his wealth, nothing else. Arpaio cost the county millions in legal fees and millions more in civil suits. He ignored at least 400 reports of sexual assaults, some against children, to devote all the resources of "his" department to rounding up brown people and promoting birtherism. A deputy in the sheriff's department was quoted as saying the mistrust he built between community and police is so extreme it will not be repaired for years, if ever. He was defeated by double digits in his last election. The heads of all the armed forces opposed a transgender ban, as did veterans' groups. The ban will cost the country millions in legal fees and probably end up overturned, unless Trump can appoint enough gay hating judges. Trump, who never served, whose family members never served, has zero military reasons for the ban, just his and his supporters' bigotry.
That is exactly why the right to a jury is called out so many times in the Constitution and the amendments. But yet a judge decides it does not apply to his court. Think about that!
Your hate is apparent. Try finding a fondness for the rule of law as given us in the Constitution. I do, I think you might like it.
My point is that the constitution allows for the pardon -- it's the POTUS's power and it appears to be completely his discretion. I don't agree with the decision or particularly the way in which this was done. But the Constitution gives him that right. You disagree with the courts' decision that the Constitution does not provide a right to a jury trial for this contempt charge. You're free to disagree with the ruling, but the courts have the power to interpret the constitution. You have the power to muse on the constitution, but the court's word has authority, and yours does not.
Seriously???? Seriously??? You suggest a black person gain a "fondness for the rule of law as given us in the Constitution"????? Wow Marz, you truly are clueless, not to mention mindbogglingly insensitive. How many times has the rule of the law as given us by the Constitution worked for them???? Very tasteless comment. Unbelievable.
Yes, the courts have the power to interpret the constitution and they do all the time. But there is no fine line here when the court simply ignores the the right to a jury trial. That is not open to interpretation. It means we have the right to a jury trial. It would be very difficult to find a jury that would convict the sheriff for upholding the laws of the United states. You may not like his methods, but that is not your call. The sheriff is answerable to his voters and they spoke. The judge just ignored a straight up requirement in the constitution to provide a jury trial as he knew damn well he would not get a jury to convict. Trump is correct to intervene, the governor got a free pass in not taking action himself.
Aw calm yourself! The black person has every protection in the constitution today that you or I have. Check it out. Oh, by the way, I find sensitivity a poor substitute for logical reasoning based on fact and absolutely inadequate in replacing the rule of law. How does that taste?
The constitution gives me rights you don't want me to have but hey... My hate.... I only hate racists...
@MarAzul The part I most strenuously disagree with is whether the sheriff was upholding the laws of the United States. He violated a court order. I don't see that as upholding the laws. I see that as directly breaking the law. The only way they would not have gotten a conviction with a jury trial is if there was jury nullification. It was clear as day that he broke the law. No remorse whatsoever in fact.
Well if you are correct, he should have had a jury trial. I don't think Trump would have given him a pardon in that case. Of course, I don't think the judge has a right to tell the sheriff what laws to enforce either, but he made that not the issue by denying a proper trial.
What recent Supreme Court case has screwed over black people? I can't think of one and I'll gladly read about one you mention. I'll actually go google Supreme Court screws over black americans right after I post this.
Just read a quick recap of it. Seems a shame but pretty obviously the right decision to stop making different states follow different rules. Republicans will find real ways to keep black people from voting I'm quite sure of that. We have to keep them from doing it within the law. I honestly don't know the latest on Stop and Frisk. That's some bullshit that may or may not work BUT I DON'T GIVE A FUCK. THIS IS AMERICA. It needs to be ruled unconstitutional if it hasn't already. I'm against illegal immigration AND those fuckface checkpoints on American soil. My wife has to keep me from screaming at those assholes.
Sometimes I picture you going into some Alex Jones rant. But I guess since he's divorcing, you must not be him.
