The Wall Street Journal is one of the most trusted
newspapers in America. Surveys show that
(along with the Economist magazine) it is a publication highly regarded by both
liberals and conservtives. It is basically
a conservative, big business, Republican newspaper that supports conservative economics, free markets, free trade,
etc. They tend to be less conservative with regard to America's culture wars. However, they call out both the left and right. They called out Obama and are calling out
Trump. They make a real effort to discuss both sides. I subscribe to it to helped get a balanced
view. Especially, if you are a
conservative, I strongly suggest you subscribe. Get out of the echo chamber and consult a rational, open minded conservative news source.
If you are trying to be
open-minded and see a balanced picture, no matter what your leanings, I suggest
you subscribe. WSJ editorial below
The 85-year-old Mr.
Arpaio became a hero of many conservatives with his brazen style and
tactics targeting illegal immigrants. His
aggressive enforcement drew a lawsuit and court injunction, culminating in a
contempt conviction last month. While Mr. Trump praised Mr. Arpaio’s long
career of public service, that hardly justifies the sheriff’s defiance of the
law he swore to uphold.
In 2008 the American Civil Liberties Union sued the
sheriff’s office for racially profiling Latinos during traffic and saturation
patrols. After several years of litigation, federal Judge Murray Snow ordered
the sheriff’s office to stop detaining individuals who had not committed a
state crime merely based on the suspicion that they are in the country
illegally.
Two years later the
judge found officers had violated his preliminary injunction and ordered
anti-bias training, a court-appointed monitor and patrol cameras, among other
remedies. In 2016 Mr. Arpaio was held in civil contempt for flouting the
judge’s orders. He was also reprimanded for withholding video evidence.
Then last August Judge Snow referred Mr. Arpaio to the
Justice Department for criminal contempt proceedings. In his defense, Mr.
Arpaio argued that the court orders were unclear to him or officers. Because
his violations were supposedly unintentional, he said criminal charges were
unwarranted.
It’s true there was some confusion as to what officers were
allowed to do under state and federal law. A 2010 state law required officers
to check the immigration status of individuals during a “lawful stop, detention
or arrest” when there’s probable cause they’re in the country illegally.
Federal judge Susan Bolton blocked the state law in 2010, but the Supreme Court
in 2012 upheld a central provision obligating officers to check individuals’
immigration status.
In any case, the
legal uncertainty doesn’t gainsay Judge Snow’s charge that Mr. Arpaio lied to
him and judicially appointed monitors. Hence the criminal contempt citation,
which Judge Snow said was needed “to vindicate the Court’s authority by
punishing the intentional disregard for that authority.” Criminal contempt is the only way to hold government
officials personally responsible for violating court orders.
Mr. Arpaio may be right that the Obama Justice Department
relished his prosecution, and some evidence presented at the trial was
irrelevant to the case. But Judge Bolton
considered the merits and, based on the evidence, determined that Mr. Arpaio
had demonstrated a “flagrant disregard” for the law.
Mr. Trump’s power to
pardon is undeniable, but pardoning Mr. Arpaio sends a message that law
enforcers can ignore court orders and get away with it. All you need is a
political ally in the White House or Governor’s mansion. Down that road lies
anarchy. Attorney General Jeff Sessions understands this, which is why he
reportedly urged the President to let the judicial process play out. Mr. Trump
short-circuited the courts by pardoning Mr. Arpaio before he was sentenced or
granted an appeal.
Some of our friends
on the right say Mr. Trump’s liberal critics had no problem dismissing
Congress’s contempt citations against former Attorney General Eric Holder and
IRS official Lois Lerner as political. The left also supported the commutation
of Bradley Manning, who leaked military intelligence.
All true and
deplorable, but since when does liberal hypocrisy justify conservative disdain
for the law? [Rather than address the issues of our CURRENT President, Trump defenders try to
turn the conversation to Obama or Hillary.
Start being logical and open minded] Mr. Trump should be setting a better standard than imitating Barack
Obama, but polarized politics is leading America to a bad place where policy
agreement or political support makes right. You pardon your lawbreakers and
we’ll pardon ours.
Mr. Trump may hope
the pardon will energize supporters, but it is also dividing the GOP. Even
before the contempt citation, Sheriff Arpaio’s aggressive tactics were becoming
unpopular, and in November he was defeated by 13 points. Mr. Trump’s disdain
for federal judges also isn’t making friends in the federal judiciary that will
have to rule on his decisions in the coming years. The Arpaio pardon is a
depressing sign of our hyper-politicized times.
Appeared in the August 28, 2017, print edition. “
No comments:
Post a Comment