That an outlier POTUS like Trump would pardon a firebrand like former Maricopa [Arizona] County Sheriff Joe Arpaigo should surprise no one; they're views are tightly aligned on the illegal immigration issue. It's just that, in this case, the pardon comes right on the heels of the conviction, and at the beginning of the President's term rather than in the traditional eleventh-hour of an administration.

More than a decade ago, a civil rights lawsuit was filed against the ousted Sheriff, alleging that he systematically violated the U.S. Constitution by profiling Latinos and arresting suspects based solely on their nationality in violation of the 4th Amendment's probable cause requirement. Like Trump, former Sheriff Arpaigo has had his differences with federal judges.

In Arpaigo's case, two judges enjoined the sheriff from detaining Latinos based solely on their appearance, and in the absence of any specific evidence that a law had been violated. The sheriff kept up the practice anyway.

Last month, Arpaigo's defiance resulted in a criminal contempt of court misdemeanor conviction. The swiftness of the presidential pardon made it one-of-a-kind.

Normally, presidential pardons are granted only after the appellate process has been exhausted and the convict has been in the penitentiary for several years, if not decades.

In Arpaigo's case, although federal judges Susan Bolton and G. Murray Snow issued an injunction against Arpaigo back in 2011, Snow followed-up with a series of subsequent orders. Thumbing his nose at the judiciary just like Trump has done over the past 18-monts, the sheriff insisted his law enforcement tactics were legal and he kept-up a rigorous campaign of Latino arrests until his ouster.

Article II of the U.S. Constitution grants the president the power, "to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States..." The SCOTUS has interpreted this power to extend to all federal crimes thus, its scope certainly includes Sheriff Arpaigo's contempt conviction.

One of the problems with wielding the presidential pardon power in real-time is that it seriously intrudes into the realm of the other branches of government. In the Arpaigo case, this pardon lessens the effectiveness of the Constitution as well as our civil rights laws. Also, the case obviously impedes the effectiveness and the powers of federal Article III judges.

Trump [being Trump] might realize just how much power he really has under the Constitution relative to the legislature and the judiciary. Wielding this power from the 4-corners of the document on a real-time, case-by-case basis to prosecute his political agenda could quickly burgeon into a constitutional crisis.

One of the legal challenges arising from this pardon is whether a chief executive can pardon a government official whose illegal conduct affects the constitutional rights of others. For her part, Judge Bolton has invited briefs on this legal issue rather than simply dismissing Arpaigo's case prior to the sentencing hearing.

There is no question Trump has the power to pardon at any point during his term. The constitutional/legal/political question is, should a chief executive exercise his Article II pardon powers to undo a recent conviction based on the political agenda of his administration, especially where the state actor's conduct affects individuals' constitutional rights.

No doubt, there are well-articulated answers on both sides. We here at the Law Blogger would like to hear from our readers on this one. Should Joe Arpaigo have been pardoned? And so soon after his conviction?

Post #604
www.clarkstonlegal.com

Roe -v- Wade critic
Judge William Pryor

The checks and balances of our unique style of Democracy are on display in the federal judiciary where the judges are appointed by the Chief Executive with the advice and consent of the Senate. At the highest level, the POTUS, the SCOTUS, and the U.S. Senate interact in a tightly-choreographed political chess match.

For nearly a year, Justice Antonin Scalia's seat on the SCOTUS has remained vacant since his death. President Obama, having nominated federal appeals court judge Merrick Garland, was already a lame duck and could not get the Senate to provide the advice and consent required by the U. S. Constitution.

During his first week in office, President Trump has reportedly narrowed the field to three nominees -all federal appellate jurists appointed to the bench by President George Bush- and is expected to announce his nominee as early as this week:

• Thomas Hardiman - 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals Judge, University of Notre Dame and Georgetown University Law Center graduate, appointed to the federal bench by President Bush in 2007 at the age of 31; 
• William Pryor - 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge, Northeast Louisiana University and Tulane University Law School graduate, appointed to the federal bench in 2006; and 
• Neil Gorsuch - 10th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge, Harvard Law School graduate with experience clerking for two SCOTUS justices [Kennedy and White], also appointed to the bench in 2006.

All three nominees have solid conservative bona fides, yet with a few interesting outliers among their jurisprudence. For example, Judge Hardiman once wrote an opinion reversing summary judgment in favor of an employee's "gender stereotyping" case against his employer [the plaintiff is a transgender woman], ruling that the disgruntled employee's suit could proceed. Another key example is when Judge Pryor -Alabama's Attorney General at the time- removed Chief Justice Roy Moore for his refusal to remove a plaque of the 10 Commandments from his courtroom.

Over their respective careers on the federal appellate bench, all three jurists have come down mostly on the side of the state in death penalty cases and on immigration issues. Judge Pryor has left no doubt where he stands on abortion, calling Roe -v- Wade, "the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law."

For his part, Judge Gorsuch may be the most natural replacement for the irreplaceable Justice Scalia. In his legal writings and scholarship, Gorsuch has exhibited incisive conservative legal analysis combined with a flair for conveying that analysis in a legal opinion. SCOTUSBlog characterizes his opinions as, "exceptionally clear and routinely entertaining." Very rare for an appellate decision.

Although he has not addressed major abortion cases as a sitting judge, Gorsuch's jurisprudence includes several high-profile cases involving the freedom of religion clauses of the Constitution. One was the Hobby Lobby case which challenged the "contraception mandate" of the Affordable Care Act; Judge Gorsuch wrote a concurring opinion in the en banc rehearing that sided with the company and the decision was largely vindicated by the subsequent SCOTUS opinion.

Considering the importance of the SCOTUS functioning with a full compliment of justices, and considering how important it is for conservatives [President Trump arguably not among them] to replace a conservative jurist with a like-minded jurist, we here at the Law Blogger are looking for a SCOTUS nomination this week.

History tells us, however, that not every federal judicial nominee adheres to the script upon which he or she was appointed. Presidents Nixon, Reagan and Clinton have all been burned.

Post #575

www.clarkstonlegal.com