Trump, once the law and order candidate, embraces lawless disorder with Arpaio pardon
President Trump described himself as “the law and order candidate” on the campaign trail, but he has consistently shown he really meant “the candidate of busting heads.”
Trump’s pardon of former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio — a man who responded to overly-lax immigration enforcement with a lawless and overly-harsh crackdown on illegal immigrants and suspected illegal immigrants — showed once again Trump really means “busting heads” when he says “law and order.”
There’s plenty of overlap between toughness and law and order. Tough policing under the “broken windows” theory was central to the restoration of law and order in New York City in the 1990s. President Obama’s softness on illegal immigration, especially late in his administration, amounted to disregard for immigration law. Trump’s pledge to enforce immigration law with toughness has restored some order, with the number of illegal crossings apparently dropping in a few months.
But “law and order,” if the words have any meaning, has to apply to government actors as well. Lawless sheriffs promote disorder, and that’s what Arpaio did to get himself convicted.
Arpaio’s defiance of a judge’s order to stop detaining people simply based on the suspicion that they were illegal immigratns was worthy of punishment. His career as a veteran and a long-time public servant does not change that. As sheriff, Arpaio’s office would routinely detain Latinos solely on the suspicion they had broken immigration law, without any evidence whatsoever that a crime had been committed. It was government overreach that was backed up by Arpaio’s authority, all while it was supposed to be Arpaio’s job to protect the people of Maricopa County from injustice.
As Sen. John McCain said, “No one is above the law and the individuals entrusted with the privilege of being sworn law officers should always seek to be beyond reproach in their commitment to fairly enforcing the laws they swore to uphold. … The President has the authority to make this pardon, but doing so at this time undermines his claim for the respect of rule of law as Mr. Arpaio has shown no remorse for his actions.”
If judicial decisions are not given their proper respect, the rule of law will break down. That’s not to say precedent can’t be overturned or convictions can’t be appealed, but established judicial processes must be followed.
If Arpaio were later given an excessively-harsh sentence, a commutation might be in order. But Arpaio’s conviction was punishable by up to only six months in jail – hardly a mean sentence, even for an 85-year-old.
In the normal pardon process, convicts apply to the Office of the Pardon Attorney at the Department of Justice. That office reviews each case and makes a recommendation to the deputy attorney general, who gives a recommendation to the president. It’s an established process that is only rarely slighted, and with good reason: the president has wide authority to grant pardons, and it’s an authority that can easily be abused.
In this case, it’s clear Trump has abused that power for a friend and political ally.
…….
- Discussion
-
DJT loses @dcexaminer on Arpaio: Once the law and order candidate, he embraces lawless disorder with Arpaio pardon https://t.co/BdGBf3VxLW
— Brit Hume (@brithume) August 27, 2017
This is a difficult issue for me. No doubt the sheriff’s support of Trump was a major factor in the pardon, but the author here overlooks the background of this case. Our immigration laws were being broken and ignored, thanks to Obama and the liberal/socialists/communists who encouraged such lawlessness in order to acquire votes. Sheriff Joe was enforcing the laws. The judge — one of those ultra liberals –was determined to use any misinterpretation of the law to convict the sheriff. The verdict was a travesty of justice, but no one, it seems, cares about that. But when the sheriff decided to continue upholding our laws, he was held in contempt.
I’m not a fan of the sheriff. He grandstands and showboats quite a bit. Remember the Obama birther issue? He would claim he had evidence of Obama’s foreign birth, but never produced it. I think he used that controversy to make a name for himself, but really had nothing to contribute on the subject. But I think his conviction in this case was a travesty.
Perhaps if Trump had waited till after the sheriff was sentenced, a pardon would have been more palatable. Seems to me Trump issued the pardon now because some polls have his approval rating down and he needed something to retain his fans’ sagging interest. The sheriff is in his 80s and a prison sentence would have been way too harsh for a guy his age. So maybe a pardon was the right thing to do, but the timing was all wrong.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.