Breaking News....Joe Arpaio was never convicted of anything

[theDoctorisIn]

What did he do Doc?

He willfully and repeatedly violated a legal court order.

Actually Arpaio was found guilty of violating peoples 4th amendment rights. The court ordered him to cease violating peoples constitutional righs. Arpaio didn't stop, and the judge found him in criminal contempt.

No he wasn't. He was found guilty of misdemeanor contempt of court for violating an order the judge had no legal business issuing.

As I understand it, the Supreme Court has upheld racial profiling in at least three cases. Arpaio was with his authority.

That's not how our legal system works. You dont get to ignore court orders you don't like.

And since the SCOTUS rejected his appeal, it's pretty safe to say they're on the side of the lower court.

I was getting emails from him about his appeal the day after the judge ruled him guilty

How much cash did you send to his legal fund?

Arpaio's attorney files motion to vacate verdict after Trump pardon

 

[bripat9643]

He willfully and repeatedly violated a legal court order.

Actually Arpaio was found guilty of violating peoples 4th amendment rights. The court ordered him to cease violating peoples constitutional righs. Arpaio didn't stop, and the judge found him in criminal contempt.

No he wasn't. He was found guilty of misdemeanor contempt of court for violating an order the judge had no legal business issuing.

As I understand it, the Supreme Court has upheld racial profiling in at least three cases. Arpaio was with his authority.

That's not how our legal system works. You dont get to ignore court orders you don't like.

And since the SCOTUS rejected his appeal, it's pretty safe to say they're on the side of the lower court.

Ignoring erroneous orders by lower courts is how we maintain our system. Of course, the system fights back when confronted. Most of that game is a waste of time and resources.

Research Supreme Court/racial profiling.

I love it when so-called conservatives completely abandon everything they supposedly stand for.

No, ignoring the law is not how our system works. In fact, it's the opposite of how our system works. We are a nation of laws, not a nation of ignoring the law.

Not during the Obama administration.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

He willfully and repeatedly violated a legal court order.

Actually Arpaio was found guilty of violating peoples 4th amendment rights. The court ordered him to cease violating peoples constitutional righs. Arpaio didn't stop, and the judge found him in criminal contempt.

No he wasn't. He was found guilty of misdemeanor contempt of court for violating an order the judge had no legal business issuing.

As I understand it, the Supreme Court has upheld racial profiling in at least three cases. Arpaio was with his authority.

That's not how our legal system works. You dont get to ignore court orders you don't like.

And since the SCOTUS rejected his appeal, it's pretty safe to say they're on the side of the lower court.

Ignoring erroneous orders by lower courts is how we maintain our system. Of course, the system fights back when confronted. Most of that game is a waste of time and resources.

Research Supreme Court/racial profiling.

I love it when so-called conservatives completely abandon everything they supposedly stand for.

No, ignoring the law is not how our system works. In fact, it's the opposite of how our system works. We are a nation of laws, not a nation of ignoring the law.

Judges do not make law, but they do often cross it in their personal arrogance.

I am not a conservative, not even a so-called one. I am as liberal as the classic definition.

 

[bripat9643]

He willfully and repeatedly violated a legal court order.

Actually Arpaio was found guilty of violating peoples 4th amendment rights. The court ordered him to cease violating peoples constitutional righs. Arpaio didn't stop, and the judge found him in criminal contempt.

No he wasn't. He was found guilty of misdemeanor contempt of court for violating an order the judge had no legal business issuing.

As I understand it, the Supreme Court has upheld racial profiling in at least three cases. Arpaio was with his authority.

That's not how our legal system works. You dont get to ignore court orders you don't like.

And since the SCOTUS rejected his appeal, it's pretty safe to say they're on the side of the lower court.

I was getting emails from him about his appeal the day after the judge ruled him guilty

How much cash did you send to his legal fund?

Arpaio's attorney files motion to vacate verdict after Trump pardon

None, actually. I admit he was asking for money, but I just didn't feel like his case was that important to me.

 

[Lewdog]

He willfully and repeatedly violated a legal court order.

Actually Arpaio was found guilty of violating peoples 4th amendment rights. The court ordered him to cease violating peoples constitutional righs. Arpaio didn't stop, and the judge found him in criminal contempt.

No he wasn't. He was found guilty of misdemeanor contempt of court for violating an order the judge had no legal business issuing.

As I understand it, the Supreme Court has upheld racial profiling in at least three cases. Arpaio was with his authority.

That's not how our legal system works. You dont get to ignore court orders you don't like.

And since the SCOTUS rejected his appeal, it's pretty safe to say they're on the side of the lower court.

Ignoring erroneous orders by lower courts is how we maintain our system. Of course, the system fights back when confronted. Most of that game is a waste of time and resources.

Research Supreme Court/racial profiling.

I love it when so-called conservatives completely abandon everything they supposedly stand for.

No, ignoring the law is not how our system works. In fact, it's the opposite of how our system works. We are a nation of laws, not a nation of ignoring the law.

Yep a lot of the same people saying he didn't have to follow a judges order based on the judges interpretations of the law, would say a Black person is stupid and deserve what happens to them when they don't follow a cops instructions when being pulled over even if the were pulled over for no reason.

The right answer is... you follow the law no matter who you are. Arpaio was told but multiple judges to stop and he continued to do it for a long time.

 

[Lewdog]

Actually Arpaio was found guilty of violating peoples 4th amendment rights. The court ordered him to cease violating peoples constitutional righs. Arpaio didn't stop, and the judge found him in criminal contempt.

No he wasn't. He was found guilty of misdemeanor contempt of court for violating an order the judge had no legal business issuing.

As I understand it, the Supreme Court has upheld racial profiling in at least three cases. Arpaio was with his authority.

That's not how our legal system works. You dont get to ignore court orders you don't like.

And since the SCOTUS rejected his appeal, it's pretty safe to say they're on the side of the lower court.

Ignoring erroneous orders by lower courts is how we maintain our system. Of course, the system fights back when confronted. Most of that game is a waste of time and resources.

Research Supreme Court/racial profiling.

I love it when so-called conservatives completely abandon everything they supposedly stand for.

No, ignoring the law is not how our system works. In fact, it's the opposite of how our system works. We are a nation of laws, not a nation of ignoring the law.

Judges do not make law, but they do often cross it in their personal arrogance.

I am not a conservative, not even a so-called one. I am as liberal as the classic definition.

Actually... some judges like the SCOTUS do make law, it's called case law. You should be happy for that, that's where the Miranda Warning was established in Miranda v. Arizona.

 

[The Original Tree]

You mean guilt for contempt of court in a so-called proceeding where he did not receive a jury trial and was not convicted of any crime because he broke no law other than disobeying an unlawful order from a crooked judge who slapped him with a petty Contempt Charge.

Yah that's right. The Sheriff only had a contempt of court charge thrown at him by The Judge!

Some Pardon! The equivalent of jay walking compared to the scum Obama Pardoned!

That's not how it works.

Arpaio will have that conviction on his criminal record for the rest of his life.

In addition, by accepting the pardon, he is legally admitting guilt.

 

[cnm]

It's a charge of contempt. Its not like its a serious charge people

Not like he could be imprisoned on such a minor charge or anything like that.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

No he wasn't. He was found guilty of misdemeanor contempt of court for violating an order the judge had no legal business issuing.

As I understand it, the Supreme Court has upheld racial profiling in at least three cases. Arpaio was with his authority.

That's not how our legal system works. You dont get to ignore court orders you don't like.

And since the SCOTUS rejected his appeal, it's pretty safe to say they're on the side of the lower court.

Ignoring erroneous orders by lower courts is how we maintain our system. Of course, the system fights back when confronted. Most of that game is a waste of time and resources.

Research Supreme Court/racial profiling.

I love it when so-called conservatives completely abandon everything they supposedly stand for.

No, ignoring the law is not how our system works. In fact, it's the opposite of how our system works. We are a nation of laws, not a nation of ignoring the law.

Judges do not make law, but they do often cross it in their personal arrogance.

I am not a conservative, not even a so-called one. I am as liberal as the classic definition.

Actually... some judges like the SCOTUS do make law, it's called case law. You should be happy for that, that's where the Miranda Warning was established in Miranda v. Arizona.

I'm quite familiar with case law and precedent, thank you.

 

[Lewdog]

That's not how our legal system works. You dont get to ignore court orders you don't like.

And since the SCOTUS rejected his appeal, it's pretty safe to say they're on the side of the lower court.

Ignoring erroneous orders by lower courts is how we maintain our system. Of course, the system fights back when confronted. Most of that game is a waste of time and resources.

Research Supreme Court/racial profiling.

I love it when so-called conservatives completely abandon everything they supposedly stand for.

No, ignoring the law is not how our system works. In fact, it's the opposite of how our system works. We are a nation of laws, not a nation of ignoring the law.

Judges do not make law, but they do often cross it in their personal arrogance.

I am not a conservative, not even a so-called one. I am as liberal as the classic definition.

Actually... some judges like the SCOTUS do make law, it's called case law. You should be happy for that, that's where the Miranda Warning was established in Miranda v. Arizona.

I'm quite familiar with case law and precedence, thank you.

You are? Then why did you state that "Judges do not make law?"

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Ignoring erroneous orders by lower courts is how we maintain our system. Of course, the system fights back when confronted. Most of that game is a waste of time and resources.

Research Supreme Court/racial profiling.

I love it when so-called conservatives completely abandon everything they supposedly stand for.

No, ignoring the law is not how our system works. In fact, it's the opposite of how our system works. We are a nation of laws, not a nation of ignoring the law.

Judges do not make law, but they do often cross it in their personal arrogance.

I am not a conservative, not even a so-called one. I am as liberal as the classic definition.

Actually... some judges like the SCOTUS do make law, it's called case law. You should be happy for that, that's where the Miranda Warning was established in Miranda v. Arizona.

I'm quite familiar with case law and precedence, thank you.

You are? Then why did you state that "Judges do not make law?"

Because they do not. The legislative branch makes law, not the Judicial branch.

That's 3rd Grade civics, or was. I see they've dropped that training.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I love it when so-called conservatives completely abandon everything they supposedly stand for.

No, ignoring the law is not how our system works. In fact, it's the opposite of how our system works. We are a nation of laws, not a nation of ignoring the law.

Judges do not make law, but they do often cross it in their personal arrogance.

I am not a conservative, not even a so-called one. I am as liberal as the classic definition.

Actually... some judges like the SCOTUS do make law, it's called case law. You should be happy for that, that's where the Miranda Warning was established in Miranda v. Arizona.

I'm quite familiar with case law and precedence, thank you.

You are? Then why did you state that "Judges do not make law?"

Because they do not. The legislative branch makes law, not the Judicial branch.

That's 3rd Grade civics, or was. I see they've dropped that training.

This probably isn't taught in most 3rd grade civics classes, so I understand that you might not know the answer to this question.

The US follows a "common law" legal system.

Do you know what that means?

 

[Lewdog]

I love it when so-called conservatives completely abandon everything they supposedly stand for.

No, ignoring the law is not how our system works. In fact, it's the opposite of how our system works. We are a nation of laws, not a nation of ignoring the law.

Judges do not make law, but they do often cross it in their personal arrogance.

I am not a conservative, not even a so-called one. I am as liberal as the classic definition.

Actually... some judges like the SCOTUS do make law, it's called case law. You should be happy for that, that's where the Miranda Warning was established in Miranda v. Arizona.

I'm quite familiar with case law and precedence, thank you.

You are? Then why did you state that "Judges do not make law?"

Because they do not. The legislative branch makes law, not the Judicial branch.

That's 3rd Grade civics, or was. I see they've dropped that training.

You JUST said you know what case LAW is. And then you repeat that they don't make law... Are you drunk?

Have you heard of any of these cases? Mapp v Ohio? Terry v Ohio? Miranda v Arizona? Garner v Tennessee?

 

[bripat9643]

Judges do not make law, but they do often cross it in their personal arrogance.

I am not a conservative, not even a so-called one. I am as liberal as the classic definition.

Actually... some judges like the SCOTUS do make law, it's called case law. You should be happy for that, that's where the Miranda Warning was established in Miranda v. Arizona.

I'm quite familiar with case law and precedence, thank you.

You are? Then why did you state that "Judges do not make law?"

Because they do not. The legislative branch makes law, not the Judicial branch.

That's 3rd Grade civics, or was. I see they've dropped that training.

This probably isn't taught in most 3rd grade civics classes, so I understand that you might not know the answer to this question.

The US follows a "common law" legal system.

Do you know what that means?

I doubt you do. We used to follow a common law legal system. It has been corrupted to the point where it no longer resembles one.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Judges do not make law, but they do often cross it in their personal arrogance.

I am not a conservative, not even a so-called one. I am as liberal as the classic definition.

Actually... some judges like the SCOTUS do make law, it's called case law. You should be happy for that, that's where the Miranda Warning was established in Miranda v. Arizona.

I'm quite familiar with case law and precedence, thank you.

You are? Then why did you state that "Judges do not make law?"

Because they do not. The legislative branch makes law, not the Judicial branch.

That's 3rd Grade civics, or was. I see they've dropped that training.

This probably isn't taught in most 3rd grade civics classes, so I understand that you might not know the answer to this question.

The US follows a "common law" legal system.

Do you know what that means?

Yes, but we have diverged greatly from the common law system of English law since the founding, both in terms of substance and procedure, and have incorporated a number of civil law innovations.

In applying the principle of stare decisis American judges, like common law judges elsewhere, not only apply the law, they also "make the law" to the extent that their decisions in the cases before them become precedent for decisions in future cases.

Precedent, however, does not override the Constitution and is not "settled law" as the Left would have everyone believe, never to be revisited.

They do not "make law".

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Actually... some judges like the SCOTUS do make law, it's called case law. You should be happy for that, that's where the Miranda Warning was established in Miranda v. Arizona.

I'm quite familiar with case law and precedence, thank you.

You are? Then why did you state that "Judges do not make law?"

Because they do not. The legislative branch makes law, not the Judicial branch.

That's 3rd Grade civics, or was. I see they've dropped that training.

This probably isn't taught in most 3rd grade civics classes, so I understand that you might not know the answer to this question.

The US follows a "common law" legal system.

Do you know what that means?

I doubt you do. We used to follow a common law legal system. It has been corrupted to the point where it no longer resembles one.

Do you understand what "common law" means?

 

[Lewdog]

Actually... some judges like the SCOTUS do make law, it's called case law. You should be happy for that, that's where the Miranda Warning was established in Miranda v. Arizona.

I'm quite familiar with case law and precedence, thank you.

You are? Then why did you state that "Judges do not make law?"

Because they do not. The legislative branch makes law, not the Judicial branch.

That's 3rd Grade civics, or was. I see they've dropped that training.

This probably isn't taught in most 3rd grade civics classes, so I understand that you might not know the answer to this question.

The US follows a "common law" legal system.

Do you know what that means?

Yes, but we have diverged greatly from the common law system of English law since the founding, both in terms of substance and procedure, and have incorporated a number of civil law innovations.

In applying the principle of stare decisis American judges, like common law judges elsewhere, not only apply the law, they also make the law, to the extent that their decisions in the cases before them become precedent for decisions in future cases.

Precedent, however, does not override the Constitution and is not "settled law" as the Left would have everyone believe, never to be revisited.

They do not "make law".

You keep saying that... but you're wrong. They have to interpret situations that arise that have to do with the Constitution and thus create case law. I asked you if you knew what some common cases were...

Let's just do one simple one then. Terry v Ohio. Do you know what it does? Do you know what part of the Constitution it has to do with? Do you know what a Terry Stop is?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Actually... some judges like the SCOTUS do make law, it's called case law. You should be happy for that, that's where the Miranda Warning was established in Miranda v. Arizona.

I'm quite familiar with case law and precedence, thank you.

You are? Then why did you state that "Judges do not make law?"

Because they do not. The legislative branch makes law, not the Judicial branch.

That's 3rd Grade civics, or was. I see they've dropped that training.

This probably isn't taught in most 3rd grade civics classes, so I understand that you might not know the answer to this question.

The US follows a "common law" legal system.

Do you know what that means?

Yes, but we have diverged greatly from the common law system of English law since the founding, both in terms of substance and procedure, and have incorporated a number of civil law innovations.

In applying the principle of stare decisis American judges, like common law judges elsewhere, not only apply the law, they also make the law, to the extent that their decisions in the cases before them become precedent for decisions in future cases.

Precedent, however, does not override the Constitution and is not "settled law" as the Left would have everyone believe, never to be revisited.

They do not "make law".

Let me give you some advice.

When you cut and paste a block of text while attempting to make it look like it was your original thought, you should read it first.

To prevent embarassing contradictions like what I've bolded above.

 

[Lewdog]

I'm quite familiar with case law and precedence, thank you.

You are? Then why did you state that "Judges do not make law?"

Because they do not. The legislative branch makes law, not the Judicial branch.

That's 3rd Grade civics, or was. I see they've dropped that training.

This probably isn't taught in most 3rd grade civics classes, so I understand that you might not know the answer to this question.

The US follows a "common law" legal system.

Do you know what that means?

Yes, but we have diverged greatly from the common law system of English law since the founding, both in terms of substance and procedure, and have incorporated a number of civil law innovations.

In applying the principle of stare decisis American judges, like common law judges elsewhere, not only apply the law, they also make the law, to the extent that their decisions in the cases before them become precedent for decisions in future cases.

Precedent, however, does not override the Constitution and is not "settled law" as the Left would have everyone believe, never to be revisited.

They do not "make law".

Let me give you some advice.

When you cut and paste a block of text while attempting to make it look like it was your original thought, you should read it first.

To prevent embarassing contradictions like what I've bolded above.

He already contradicted himself earlier on the same thing.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm quite familiar with case law and precedence, thank you.

You are? Then why did you state that "Judges do not make law?"

Because they do not. The legislative branch makes law, not the Judicial branch.

That's 3rd Grade civics, or was. I see they've dropped that training.

This probably isn't taught in most 3rd grade civics classes, so I understand that you might not know the answer to this question.

The US follows a "common law" legal system.

Do you know what that means?

I doubt you do. We used to follow a common law legal system. It has been corrupted to the point where it no longer resembles one.

Do you understand what "common law" means?

Common law was the system devised by the common people in Britain when it was a full fledged monarchy. It was not administered by the crown. It was also not the product of legislation. It developed slowly over time based on precedent. Even the King was subject to it in its later stages. Our system was originally based on it, but now our law is almost purely the product of legislative whim.