Liberals, including more than 30 Democrats in the House, wanted legal blood. When President Donald Trump pardoned former Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio on his contempt of court conviction, the left wanted SO BADLY for a federal judge to invalidate the move as unconstitutional. Why? Well, they made a handful of weak legal arguments, but they basically boiled down to: We don’t like Trump, we don’t like Arpaio, we’re pandering to Hispanics on illegal immigration, so all of this means we have to oppose this move.
Thankfully, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton, unlike her friends in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, appears to have a larger desire to uphold the law than to play politics on the bench. Bolton ruled Wednesday that she was dismissing the case against Arpaio in deference to the president’s pardon, leaving the controversial sheriff free from any sentencing that might have come down for his supposed “crime” of enforcing federal immigration law.
Had it not been for Trump’s pardon, Arpaio would have been facing up to a year in prison for disobeying a court order to stop asking Maricopa County Hispanics for their identification. Arpaio allegedly continued the practice for months after the order in an attempt to rid his jurisdiction of illegal immigrants. In a bench trial this summer, Judge Bolton ruled that Arpaio was guilty of criminal contempt in his defiance of the original order.
“You’d think the DOJ lawyers especially would have other things to work on and worry about, given, you know, how many accusations of police brutality the nation has been grappling with for the past few years,” wrote an angry Breanna Edwards in The Root. “But, yet, here we are, securing the freedom of a windbag who continually harassed Latino people, has a laundry list of horrific things that happened in his jail while he was running it and, because one cannot be too much of a racist caricature apparently, continues to insist that our former President Barack Obama’s birth certificate is fake.
“Oh, to be a white man in this country. I imagine it must be lit,” she concluded.
Oh, to be a liberal activist in this country, where you don’t need to be legally or factually correct, you just need to be sufficiently MAD about some perceived injustice that supposedly dates back to the earliest days of the country’s founding.
There has never been a legal limit on presidential pardons in this country, and if there were, Trump’s wouldn’t come close to reaching them. This was a reasonable move on the president’s part, sparing an 85-year-old lawman whose only crime – at worst – was misunderstanding a biased court order. In a year where the courts have been wildly out of line in their Trump rulings, it is refreshing to see that there are still judges (Clinton-appointed, no less!) who respect the power of the executive branch.