National Review Online
Monday, August 28, 2017
The announcement of the pardon of former Sheriff Joseph
Arpaio on a Friday night — the time usually reserved for getting out bad news —
suggests that some people at the White House might have been embarrassed by it.
If so, they were correct.
We are mindful of the hypocrisy of the Left regarding
abuse of the president’s constitutional pardon power. President Clinton put it
on sale for the benefit of donors and cronies. President Obama used it to
effectively rewrite Congress’s narcotics statutes, for the benefit of drug
felons and in circumvention of his duty to execute the laws faithfully. Both
commuted the sentences of anti-American terrorists from the FALN and the
Weathermen. These were disgraceful acts.
But that past doesn’t make Trump’s pardon any less
objectionable. Trump acted for the benefit of a political crony, just like
Clinton. He did it — just like Clinton — outside the Justice Department’s
pardon process. While presidents have the authority to go around DOJ, the
regular process is in place to ensure that presidents make fully informed
pardon decisions. To short-circuit the standard procedure is to consciously
avoid facts that might show that clemency is unwarranted.
In this case, the facts are that Sheriff Arpaio
repeatedly flouted court orders and detained aliens on suspicion of being in
the United States illegally, which is not a crime under federal law (it’s a
civil offense).
Even if one believes it should be a crime, Congress has
not criminalized it. Even if, moreover, one believes that the states should
have the sovereign authority to criminalize trespass by aliens in the country
unlawfully, the federal courts have thwarted them. Law officers are bound to
enforce the law as it exists, not the law as they would have it. Furthermore,
if law officers believe court orders are incorrect, their remedy is to
challenge them through these constitutional procedures, not to flout them. The
rule of law depends on it.
It must be stressed that the president has the power to
commute sentences while leaving convictions in place. If Trump believed that
the 85-year-old Arpaio’s age, honorable military service, and long
law-enforcement career militated in favor of clemency, he could have set aside
any federal sentence imposed on the former sheriff. To the contrary, Trump’s
issuance of a full pardon effectively endorses Arpaio’s misconduct.
Arpaio had not been sentenced; therefore, his conviction
was not even final yet. As his defenders have maintained since the judge found
him guilty, he has non-frivolous appellate claims, even if he was unlikely to
prevail. The first is that he didn’t get a jury trial. The court denied him one
because the contempt offense was tried as a misdemeanor, meaning he faced a
maximum of six months’ imprisonment — a ruling urged and supported by the
Justice Department after Trump took office. The second regards criminal intent,
as Arpaio contends that he relied on the advice of counsel in disobeying court
orders.
If the president had stayed his hand and let the legal
process work, it is possible that there’d have been no need to consider a
pardon. Instead, Trump’s pardon is so premature that Arpaio was not even
eligible under Justice Department guidelines to petition for a pardon.
Furthermore, if Arpaio was wrongfully convicted, as his lawyers and allies
maintain, the judicial system has been denied the opportunity to reverse the
result. While the pardon formally forgives the sheriff’s lawlessness, the legal
proceeding to this point will remain (another) mark against him.
Arpaio is a hero to the populist Right, but his
theatrical, inhumane imprisonment policies, ham-fisted immigration enforcement,
and all-around witless showmanship had become so toxic that he got soundly
thrashed in his latest reelection bid in a Trump-friendly county. No one
serious about immigration restriction should want Arpaio to be the poster boy
for the cause, but that is clearly what Trump considers him, and his pardon
makes the point rather emphatically. Better than dumping this pardon on a
Friday night would have been never granting it at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment