Trump has pardoned Joe Arpaio

[J.Wilkins]

I tried to explain that opinions on what morality is are opinions, not morality. My opinion is that morality can't be contained in a definition or a prescription because morality is love in action. There is no meaning in the idea that love is action other than if you want to know what morality is you have to love. There is no meaning in you have to love because there is no way that love can be commanded. Morality isn't the words that are spoken from a conscious state, it is the state itself. If you do not know the state, there is no way to define morality. I can only point.

Morality in and of itself is an opinion on what is moral. It is subjective since it's human individuals that make it up. Morals external from humans does not exist.

Love is love, it has nothing to do with morals which is a set of ethics that do not always correspond to the good of the individual but the good of society as a whole.

I know the state of unconditional love, it's how I love myself.

 

[Moonbeam]

SO what you are saying is that the constitutional protections that other US citizens enjoy should not be extended to other US citizens only for the reason of the colour of their skin with no suspicion other than that they are too damn brown to be Americans?

That is exactly what you are saying here.

His morality consists of the single focus on the illegality of illegal immigration. He does not see the abuse of rights his morality introduces because he cant handle complex gray area thinking. Everything must be black and white and simple. Complexity introduces insecurity and he can't handle feeling that. Conservatives are snowflakes and why they call others by that handle. Projection.....

In moral ambiguity there is the risk of sin and conservatives were made to conform by being told of the dangers of being guilty. It would mean excommunication from group identity and flock safety.

 

[ivwshane]

Like we needed any more 'tells' from the bloated orange fuck.

At this point I doubt the right would believe trump if he came out and said, "I stand with racists". Nor would they care.

 

[J.Wilkins]

His morality consists of the single focus on the illegality of illegal immigration. He does not see the abuse of rights his morality introduces because he cant handle complex gray area thinking. Everything must be black and white and simple. Complexity introduces insecurity and he can't handle feeling that. Conservatives are snowflakes and why they call others by that handle. Projection.....

In moral ambiguity there is the risk of sin and conservatives were made to conform by being told of the dangers of being guilty. It would mean excommunication from group identity and flock safety.

Actually, I think he can see it and that is why he tried to justify it.

From what I've seen him post he's no conservative either, it's just this one issue where he's OK since he's not brown enough to be affected.

Unfortunately that makes him a fascist, a progressive and perhaps even socialist fascist but none the less, a fascist.

 

[J.Wilkins]

At this point I doubt the right would believe trump if he came out and said, "I stand with racists". Nor would they care.

I'd think a majority of his supporters would say "he's a straight talker" and support him while arguing that neither Trump, themselves or the Nazis are racists.

Isn't that how it's gone so far?

 

[Moonbeam]

J.Wilkins: Morality in and of itself is an opinion on what is moral.

M: That I would call your opinion, one I do not share.

JW: It is subjective since it's human individuals that make it up.

M: Not if we are all the same and morality arises out of the same universal condition, one few are aware exists.

JW: Morals external from humans does not exist.

M: Another opinion. I will use a religious analogy to make a case against what you say here. We were created in God's image so that what ever is absolutely moral is reflected in us and assessable when the barrier between self and God ceases to exist. Meister Eckhart: "The eye with which I see God is the same eye with which He sees me."

JW: Love is love, it has nothing to do with morals which is a set of ethics that do not always correspond to the good of the individual but the good of society as a whole.

M: Love is extinction, the lover and the beloved are one. In the oneness of love there is only perfection. Without duality morality does not exist.

JW: I know the state of unconditional love, it's how I love myself.

M: There is no love that isn't unconditional. That kind of love is something else. I have deep respect for your affirmation here.

 

[Moonbeam]

Actually, I think he can see it and that is why he tried to justify it.

From what I've seen him post he's no conservative either, it's just this one issue where he's OK since he's not brown enough to be affected.

Unfortunately that makes him a fascist, a progressive and perhaps even socialist fascist but none the less, a fascist.

I mistook him for a different Boomer so I withdraw what I said. His not being brown enough may explain him better than I did.

Clearly it is very illogical to think that because a violation of privacy by the police in stereotyping by color as a means to achieve efficient law enforcement is based on the false assumption that law enforcement's primary goal is efficiency rather than the insurance that justice is achieved via constitutional means, something that won't happen by unconstitutional enforcement or the violation of the rights of only a select group of visibly identifiable people. He has his moral priorities wrong.

 

[cytg111]

I think you made the assumption that you already understand, that a truth that differs from your conditioning you don't understand must be 'acid''. This kind of reaction to understanding that seeing what is dark for you is covered in my sig under a similar term, gibberish. It is also referred iin the Zen tradition as having a full teacup. A seeker asks for clarification if he or she doesn't understand. The truth is deeply hidden, in your case by the assumption you already know it.

Now that this is no longer expressed in generalizations but personally, we'll see how well you do fighting me with understanding.

- Whatever dude, you seem to think that the contents of your cup is better than the contents of mine. I have sipped both and son, you know jack. I've been around your enlightened kin and call one a dear friend, but dude, just cause you have had a few sessions and an experience of understanding yourself does not equate into an understanding of everything and everyone else. Stop it dude, what is yours is yours, dont project that truth onto everyone else cause odds are that it aint a fit. Your truth is not a truth universally.

 

[Moonbeam]

- Whatever dude, you seem to think that the contents of your cup is better than the contents of mine. I have sipped both and son, you know jack. I've been around your enlightened kin and call one a dear friend, but dude, just cause you have had a few sessions and an experience of understanding yourself does not equate into an understanding of everything and everyone else. Stop it dude, what is yours is yours, dont project that truth onto everyone else cause odds are that it aint a fit. Your truth is not a truth universally.

I only wanted to tell you that the truth could easily be hidden by the assumption you already know it. Who do you know who has told you that. You have put me in a box, labeled it, and filed me away on a shelf. You are save now.

 

[cytg111]

I only wanted to tell you that the truth could easily be hidden by the assumption you already know it. Who do you know who has told you that. You have put me in a box, labeled it, and filed me away on a shelf. You are save now.

Naw, I asked if this was the correct box, I could have done that by better manners, agreed, but non the less.

 

[woolfe9998]

Whatever the legalities of stopping/searching people on suspicion of illegal immigration, Arpaio was convicted of violating a court order. If the POTUS pardons his friends who violate court orders, that is a serious violation of the underlying principle of separation of powers. Criminal contempt is the only manner in which a court can enforce its orders. Trump has exposed yet another weakness in our Constitution. Presidential pardon powers have always been over broad. We're just now finding out because Trump is abusing them.

 

[fskimospy]

Whatever the legalities of stopping/searching people on suspicion of illegal immigration, Arpaio was convicted of violating a court order. If the POTUS pardons his friends who violate court orders, that is a serious violation of the underlying principle of separation of powers. Criminal contempt is the only manner in which a court can enforce its orders. Trump has exposed yet another weakness in our Constitution. Presidential pardon powers have always been over broad. We're just now finding out because Trump is abusing them.

I wonder if this is challenged in court if SCOTUS would reign those powers in. There seems to be a pretty decent case that if the president can simply pardon officials for criminal contempt of court orders that stem from those officials violating the Constitution, the protections of the Constitution no longer apply in any meaningful way and the judiciary has been stripped of its power as a coequal branch.

 

[woolfe9998]

I wonder if this is challenged in court if SCOTUS would reign those powers in. There seems to be a pretty decent case that if the president can simply pardon officials for criminal contempt of court orders that stem from those officials violating the Constitution, the protections of the Constitution no longer apply in any meaningful way and the judiciary has been stripped of its power as a coequal branch.

Yeah, that's right. If the POTUS can pardon people for violating court orders, then the Constitution - and separation of powers - goes out the window. The SCOTUS is going to have to be rather activist to overturn this sort of thing though. The Constitution by its wording places no limits on POTUS pardon power other than "impeachment."

 

[K1052]

Apparently Arpaio is mulling a primary challenge to Flake now. I can not think of any possible worse outcome for the AZ GOP were that to happen.

 

[fskimospy]

Yeah, that's right. If the POTUS can pardon people for violating court orders, then the Constitution - and separation of powers - goes out the window. The SCOTUS is going to have to be rather activist to overturn this sort of thing though. The Constitution by its wording places no limits on POTUS pardon power other than "impeachment."

I hear that, but if the alternative is a functionally broken Constitution what choice is there?

 

[ivwshane]

Yeah, that's right. If the POTUS can pardon people for violating court orders, then the Constitution - and separation of powers - goes out the window. The SCOTUS is going to have to be rather activist to overturn this sort of thing though. The Constitution by its wording places no limits on POTUS pardon power other than "impeachment."

You are implying that the founding fathers didn't see this "loophole", I find that hard to believe.

Apparently the founding fathers never thought that such an unscrupulous person would be elected president. Well, I'm sure they thought that the electoral college would have prevented that. Oops.

 

[realibrad]

I don't see the power to pardon as a loophole. By giving this pardon, the president opens himself up for impeachment. Impeachment does not require a president to break a law either. Giving the president the power to pardon is a check that the founders wanted. Sometimes, it can be used for the worse, but it can also be a tool for the better.

This is just an example of why we as a people need to elect better people. If we give the government power, then we need to make sure we have reasonable people in control of that power.

 

[woolfe9998]

I hear that, but if the alternative is a functionally broken Constitution what choice is there?

Ideally, we should be amending the Constitution. Not just for this, but for several other things. We can start with the electoral college. That a POTUS is not immune to being charged with obstruction. A POTUS can't pardon himself or anyone with whom he is involved in the same criminal conspiracy. All weaknesses exposed by Trump.

But obviously that is not a political possibility at the moment.

 

[woolfe9998]

You are implying that the founding fathers didn't see this "loophole", I find that hard to believe.

Apparently the founding fathers never thought that such an unscrupulous person would be elected president. Well, I'm sure they thought that the electoral college would have prevented that. Oops.

I don't honestly know what they thought. What is pretty clear is that the POTUS has potentially far more power under strict construction of the Constitution than has traditionally been exercised. And it could get worse still with Trump. Much worse. Either the FF didn't think we'd ever have an authoritarian POTUS or they really thought the POTUS should be more like a king.

You realize that in theory, a POTUS can ignore every court ruling, then pardon himself when held in contempt? That would allow him to violate the Constitution at his whim, with no consequence. It's a very dangerous loophole.

 

[Thebobo]

Because the reactions of batshit crazy liberals is just amazing to watch. I could cancel cable tv and just watch meltdown videos on youtube. Do you all ever get tired of being manipulated hypocritical little tards? I can get the anger you may be feeling had you expressed 1/1000th of your whininess while obama was president. Sure maybe this pardon was not the best thing to do at this time.... but where was your anger when obama pardoned chelsea manning and his other 1900+ communations and pardon... some being somewhat suspect?

Ok now it makes sense.

 

[pmv]

I don't see the power to pardon as a loophole. By giving this pardon, the president opens himself up for impeachment. Impeachment does not require a president to break a law either. Giving the president the power to pardon is a check that the founders wanted. Sometimes, it can be used for the worse, but it can also be a tool for the better.

This is just an example of why we as a people need to elect better people. If we give the government power, then we need to make sure we have reasonable people in control of that power.

So could the President have all hostile congress members shot, and then pardon the shooters?

If the only way to constrain the use of the pardon is via impeachment, does that mean as long as the President's guys can keep bumping off Congressmen before they can impeach him, such a situation could be maintained indefinitely and would be entirely compatible with the constitution?

Hmmm, I suppose eventually President Caligula would have to face an election....but he could just have the electorate shot of course. The Presidential pardon seems a hell of a powerful implement.

 

[realibrad]

So could the President have all hostile congress members shot, and then pardon the shooters?

If the only way to constrain the use of the pardon is via impeachment, does that mean as long as the President's guys can keep bumping off Congressmen before they can impeach him, such a situation could be maintained indefinitely and would be entirely compatible with the constitution?

Legally a pardon cannot be undone and there are no limits on what a president can pardon. As I said, this is why its important whom we elect to government. The only recourse would be to stop the person from giving more pardons.

 

[woolfe9998]

So could the President have all hostile congress members shot, and then pardon the shooters?

If the only way to constrain the use of the pardon is via impeachment, does that mean as long as the President's guys can keep bumping off Congressmen before they can impeach him, such a situation could be maintained indefinitely and would be entirely compatible with the constitution?

Hmmm, I suppose eventually President Caligula would have to face an election....but he could just have the electorate shot of course. The Presidential pardon seems a hell of a powerful implement.

Pretty much, yes. One thing which in theory could stop that is prosecution under state law, which is not subject to presidential pardon. In this case, I assume it would be the law of the District of Columbia, which has its own criminal code. I doubt they'd have jurisdiction if the murders were committed on federal property though.

Another thing would be if a POTUS cannot pardon himself. The argument goes like this: since the Constitution makes "impeachment" an exception to pardoning power, the POTUS can never pardon himself because any crime could, in theory, be a basis for impeachment proceedings. In your example, the POTUS would be a co-conspirator in the crimes. He could pardon the assassins but perhaps not himself. However, I doubt that is what the framers meant when they made impeachment an exception.

 

[Jhhnn]

You are implying that the founding fathers didn't see this "loophole", I find that hard to believe.

Apparently the founding fathers never thought that such an unscrupulous person would be elected president. Well, I'm sure they thought that the electoral college would have prevented that. Oops.

I'll go with that. Sometimes I can't resist-

 

[ivwshane]

I don't honestly know what they thought. What is pretty clear is that the POTUS has potentially far more power under strict construction of the Constitution than has traditionally been exercised. And it could get worse still with Trump. Much worse. Either the FF didn't think we'd ever have an authoritarian POTUS or they really thought the POTUS should be more like a king.

You realize that in theory, a POTUS can ignore every court ruling, then pardon himself when held in contempt? That would allow him to violate the Constitution at his whim, with no consequence. It's a very dangerous loophole.

I am aware of that and the one safeguard they put in place was totally ineffective... the Electoral college.