08-31-2017, 06:33 PM
(08-31-2017, 06:05 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I get that, but I don't buy it. All he's doing is saying that whomever - in this case, Arpaio - does not have to be punished for his crime. He's not overturning a conviction or saying that a crime wasn't committed. By Trump pardoning Arpaio, he's not saying that the court, in the future, is prohibited from ever doing what they did in Arpaio's case. The argument, as presented in the article, is vague and you can apply it to ANY person that a president has pardoned. And, like I said, would set a dangerous precedent.
A pardon means he voids the conviction. Records expunged, all done. When it comes to things like this, the precedent Trump sets with this pardon is a dangerous one as it does send several messages. One, of cronyism, but the more important one is that the current administration seemingly does not see it wrong for public officials to violate the civil liberties of citizens of this country (forget about the immigrants, both legal and illegal), as well as violating a federal court order to continue doing so. I'm not disagreeing that if they win this case it can be a dangerous precedent, but to me, the precedent set with the pardon is more dangerous. Holding our public officials accountable is extremely important, and a pardon like this undermines the court's ability to do so and tells officials that the administration has their back in it.
