Much cussed and discussed topic of the day, it seems. I noted how it kept being mentioned that he was "convicted". Upon closer examination, I found that he was "convicted" without a jury trial.
Not that the judge lacks power to put someone in jail for contempt. However, a person has a right to a trial by jury. Or, if someone is going to refer to it as a conviction, it should be noted that Arpaio didn't receive a jury trial.
If the phrase of "rule of law" is going to be used, then at least let it be according to our Constitution.
A POTUS has the power under the Constitution to grant pardons. A judge can slap a contempt charge on somebody. But please don't use "conviction" and "rule of law" for what is an opinion of a single judge.
Even if the Supreme Court says he is in contempt, he still has a right to a trial by jury. And the POTUS can pardon him if he wishes. The law says so. Don't give me this "rule of law" bravo sierra, which claims he cannot.
Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
No comments:
Post a Comment