For those keeping track of this interesting Constitutional issue, Politico is reporting that the hearing concerning whether or not Arpaio’s conviction will be vacated will be October 4. A collection of Democratic lawmakers have submitted a letter to the judge asking her to reject the pardon.
More than 30 House members are urging a federal judge to reject President Donald Trump’s pardon of former Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio on a contempt of court charge.
The lawmakers—all liberal Democrats—filed an amicus brief Wednesday arguing that Trump’s pardon amounts to an unconstitutional intrusion on the judicial branch’s ability to ensure that its orders are obeyed.
“A full and unconditional presidential pardon….effectively deprives the Court of ‘the independent means of self-protection,’ and makes the Court dependent on the Executive,” the House members argue in the new brief. “The pardon here is an intentional usurpation of the Court’s authority by the President. President Trump does not pretend that his pardon of the Defendant is based upon the considerations of grace that usually justify the exercise of the pardon power.”
That would cause quite a stir and would probably go right to the Supreme Court. But would it further polarize the nation – provoke an interesting debate? I fear the former, not the latter.
