msnbc No evidence that Trump followed the normal process of pardoning people. Guest mentioned

[riversedge]

there is no DOJ recommendation or other indications of following the normal process.

[riversedge]

1. Bob Bauer, WH lawyer under Obama is the guest

[Squinch]

2. Any mention of whether that nullifies the pardon?

[Lochloosa]

3. Nope. Nothing in the constitution about nullifying a pardon. It's a done deal.

[Squinch]

4. There was a times editorial yesterday that suggests that the pardon of a conviction

for ignoring a court injunction might be an exception if a suit is brought.

A hail Mary, but worth a shot.

[Ms. Toad]

7. Not quite.

The constitution prohibits the deprivation of liberty and property interests without due process. What Arpaio did violated the due process rights of the individuals he unconstitutionally profiled, detained etc. The only way of enforcing the rights of individuals like those targeted by Arpaio is the power of injunction (and contempt if the injunction is violated). Permitting a pardon for such acts (and sending the message that future state actors can expect to be pardoned) threatens the rest of the constitution.

A similar quandry faced courts that regularly found that evidence had been obtained in violation of constitutional rights - but permitted it to be used any way because nothing in the constitution directly prohibits the use of unconstitutionally obtained evidence to obtain a conviction. Before exclusionary rules, courts regularly found that the constitutional rights of defendants had been violated, then proceeded to convict then with - effectively - a "too bad, so sad, you lose" attitude. To put teeth into the constitutional prohibition, courts created rules excluding evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights.

Courts could take a similar path here, by fashioning a rule to protect the constitutional rights of Arapaio's targets (or more likely targets of different law enforcement officers down the road) by finding the pardon of the offender itself a violation of the constitution.

[onenote]

8. Dreaming -- No US court has ever overturned a presidential pardon as far as I know

Nor is it imaginable that they ever will.

The Constitution states that the President "shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment". The very fact that the Constitution expressly carves out one, and only one exception indicates that in all other instances, the president's pardon power is absolute.

See, e.g., Ex Parte Garland (US Supreme Court, 1866): "By the second section of the second article of the Constitution, power is given to the President 'to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.' With that exception the power is unlimited. It extends to every offence, and is intended to relieve the party who may have committed it or who may be charged with its commission, from all the punishments of every description that the law, at the time of the pardon, imposes."

[Ms. Toad]

9. It is definitely uncharted territory

But prior to the creation of exclusionary rules, fashioned because all else had failed to prevent law enforcement from violating the rights of defendants, there was no effective remedy to address the unconstitutional acts that violated the rights of defendants.

You would also need to make the argument that the violation of the constitutional rights of an individual is not inherently criminal - so it is not an act against the United States, but against an individual and therefore not covered by the second amendment. Yes, what Arpaio did was criminal (criminal contempt), but the criminal contempt was imposed as punishment not for criminal acts - but for infringing the constitutional rights of indivduals (civil, rather than criminal).

Not likely to go thorugh under this Supreme Court, but I could make a legal agument that passes the laugh test.

[onenote]

10. It's not uncharted territory and would lose 9-0 in this or any other Supreme Court.

In 1925, the Supreme Court, in Ex Parte Grossman, noted that the pardoning by the President of criminal contempts had been practiced more than three-quarters of a century and concluded that criminal contempt is an "offence against the United States," within the meaning of Article II, 2, Cl. 1 of the Constitution, and pardonable by the President thereunder.

[Ms. Toad]

12. Maybe we'll have the opportunity to see. n/t

[onenote]

13. I sincerely doubt that.

Who would have standing? As noted above, the Court has been clear that criminal contempt punishes an offense against the state, not against an individual.

[kairos12]

5. This is a test missile of a pardon. The big ones come when he starts pardoning everyone

from the Russia investigation.

[procon]

6. That's my thought as well.

If Trump skates away from this with little or no consequences, the Russian pardons will follow.

[dalton99a]

11. He's got a stack of blanks ready to be signed