Federal Judge ignores Arpiao Pardon, refuses to erase conviction

[NewYorkExpress]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/10/20/federal-judge-refuses-to-erase-joe-arpaios-conviction-despite-trump-pardon/?utm_term=.2a6477fe009e

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So just how far does a Presidential Pardon go? Can Judge Bolton ignore the Pardon and keep the conviction on the record, or does the conviction get tossed too?

And should it matter to anyone other than Arpaio's loyal followers?

[Fuzzy Bear]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/10/20/federal-judge-refuses-to-erase-joe-arpaios-conviction-despite-trump-pardon/?utm_term=.2a6477fe009e

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So just how far does a Presidential Pardon go? Can Judge Bolton ignore the Pardon and keep the conviction on the record, or does the conviction get tossed too?

And should it matter to anyone other than Arpaio's loyal followers?

Ah, the 9th Circus Court of Appeals with another politicized activist decision.

What this would mean is that if someone convicted erroneously who was later granted a pardon righting the wrong would be treated as a convicted felon.  The decision could conceivably result in a number of folks who have had pardons losing their jobs, their right to vote, sit on a jury, hold professional licenses, etc., because they've been "re-felonized" by the 9th Circus.

What the Court has done has reduced a Pardon to a mere commutation of a sentence.  This is, IMO, a usurpation of the power of the President to pardon that is (A) not lawful, and (B) not just.  The pardon power exists, ideally, to restore folks who have made a mistake, and to undo the work of Courts as a result of an erroneous verdict that the Courts, for whatever reason, will not reverse.  A Pardon is more than a Commutation of Sentence; it's restoring a person to a state as if they never committed the act.

This decision is not sui generis; it becomes a precedent for the entire 9th Circuit.  Indeed, it will be a national precedent if it is upheld by the Supreme Court.  I don't know about you, but this isn't my idea of a Freedom Decision, much as I loathe Arpaio.

[NewYorkExpress]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/10/20/federal-judge-refuses-to-erase-joe-arpaios-conviction-despite-trump-pardon/?utm_term=.2a6477fe009e

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So just how far does a Presidential Pardon go? Can Judge Bolton ignore the Pardon and keep the conviction on the record, or does the conviction get tossed too?

And should it matter to anyone other than Arpaio's loyal followers?

Ah, the 9th Circus Court of Appeals with another politicized activist decision.

What this would mean is that if someone convicted erroneously who was later granted a pardon righting the wrong would be treated as a convicted felon.  The decision could conceivably result in a number of folks who have had pardons losing their jobs, their right to vote, sit on a jury, hold professional licenses, etc., because they've been "re-felonized" by the 9th Circus.

What the Court has done has reduced a Pardon to a mere commutation of a sentence.  This is, IMO, a usurpation of the power of the President to pardon that is (A) not lawful, and (B) not just.  The pardon power exists, ideally, to restore folks who have made a mistake, and to undo the work of Courts as a result of an erroneous verdict that the Courts, for whatever reason, will not reverse.  A Pardon is more than a Commutation of Sentence; it's restoring a person to a state as if they never committed the act.

This decision is not sui generis; it becomes a precedent for the entire 9th Circuit.  Indeed, it will be a national precedent if it is upheld by the Supreme Court.  I don't know about you, but this isn't my idea of a Freedom Decision, much as I loathe Arpaio.

This was a District Court Judge. It goes to the Ninth Circuit next, then probably the Supreme Court.

[GeorgiaModerate]

A pardon doesn't erase or remove a conviction.  The DOJ's own web site confirms this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Gass3268]

Yup, also by accepting the pardon, Arpiao accepted that he was guilty.

[SteveRogers]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/10/20/federal-judge-refuses-to-erase-joe-arpaios-conviction-despite-trump-pardon/?utm_term=.2a6477fe009e

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So just how far does a Presidential Pardon go? Can Judge Bolton ignore the Pardon and keep the conviction on the record, or does the conviction get tossed too?

And should it matter to anyone other than Arpaio's loyal followers?

Ah, the 9th Circus Court of Appeals with another politicized activist decision.

What this would mean is that if someone convicted erroneously who was later granted a pardon righting the wrong would be treated as a convicted felon.  The decision could conceivably result in a number of folks who have had pardons losing their jobs, their right to vote, sit on a jury, hold professional licenses, etc., because they've been "re-felonized" by the 9th Circus.

What the Court has done has reduced a Pardon to a mere commutation of a sentence.  This is, IMO, a usurpation of the power of the President to pardon that is (A) not lawful, and (B) not just.  The pardon power exists, ideally, to restore folks who have made a mistake, and to undo the work of Courts as a result of an erroneous verdict that the Courts, for whatever reason, will not reverse.  A Pardon is more than a Commutation of Sentence; it's restoring a person to a state as if they never committed the act.

This decision is not sui generis; it becomes a precedent for the entire 9th Circuit.  Indeed, it will be a national precedent if it is upheld by the Supreme Court.  I don't know about you, but this isn't my idea of a Freedom Decision, much as I loathe Arpaio.

Overdramatic much? As the District Judge pointed out in their opinion, a pardon certainly frees an individual from any and all punishment for the offense. So a felon who is pardoned will get out of jail AND have their voting rights, right to own firearms, etc. restored.

All the court is saying her is that a pardon does NOT also entitle a person to what would amount to an automatic expunction of their record. Expunction is a separate process that involves the actual destruction of records pertaining to a case.

Yes, the presidential pardon power is, in theory, an important check on judicial overreach. But the executive does not have the power to order the judiciary to reverse its decisions or to alter its record of the facts. This is basic separation of powers stuff.

[KingSweden]

A pardon doesn't erase or remove a conviction.  The DOJ's own web site confirms this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sounds like we can expect a unanimous decision from the 9th, then.

[DrScholl]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/10/20/federal-judge-refuses-to-erase-joe-arpaios-conviction-despite-trump-pardon/?utm_term=.2a6477fe009e

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So just how far does a Presidential Pardon go? Can Judge Bolton ignore the Pardon and keep the conviction on the record, or does the conviction get tossed too?

And should it matter to anyone other than Arpaio's loyal followers?

Ah, the 9th Circus Court of Appeals with another politicized activist decision.

What this would mean is that if someone convicted erroneously who was later granted a pardon righting the wrong would be treated as a convicted felon.  The decision could conceivably result in a number of folks who have had pardons losing their jobs, their right to vote, sit on a jury, hold professional licenses, etc., because they've been "re-felonized" by the 9th Circus.

What the Court has done has reduced a Pardon to a mere commutation of a sentence.  This is, IMO, a usurpation of the power of the President to pardon that is (A) not lawful, and (B) not just.  The pardon power exists, ideally, to restore folks who have made a mistake, and to undo the work of Courts as a result of an erroneous verdict that the Courts, for whatever reason, will not reverse.  A Pardon is more than a Commutation of Sentence; it's restoring a person to a state as if they never committed the act.

This decision is not sui generis; it becomes a precedent for the entire 9th Circuit.  Indeed, it will be a national precedent if it is upheld by the Supreme Court.  I don't know about you, but this isn't my idea of a Freedom Decision, much as I loathe Arpaio.

That is not how the law works. The President can't clear a criminal record with a pardon.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Impeach this biatch

[Fuzzy Bear]

A pardon doesn't erase or remove a conviction.  The DOJ's own web site confirms this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As Arpaio is a misdemeanant, this is almost ceremonial.

I am concerned as to the effect the Court's action will negatively impact folks who have a real need for the benefits of the pardon they received.

[GeorgiaModerate]

A pardon doesn't erase or remove a conviction.  The DOJ's own web site confirms this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As Arpaio is a misdemeanant, this is almost ceremonial.

I am concerned as to the effect the Court's action will negatively impact folks who have a real need for the benefits of the pardon they received.

But it doesn't.  There are two separate processes here.  The pardon removes all consequences of the conviction (sentence, restrictions for felons such as loss of right to vote or bear arms, etc.) but not the fact of the conviction.  Another section from the DOJ website referenced above:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What Arpaio is asking for is to have the conviction expunged and removed form his record.  As noted in the earlier quote from the website, this is a prerogative of the court and one that is very rarely granted.  If the conviction isn't expunged, the person receiving the pardon still gets the benefits of the pardon. 

The court's ruling just declines to expunge the conviction.  It does not affect Arpaio's pardon; they're two different things.  Neither does it affect any future pardons such as you were concerned about.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Impeach this biatch

Lock Her Up?

[GeorgiaModerate]

A pardon doesn't erase or remove a conviction.  The DOJ's own web site confirms this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As Arpaio is a misdemeanant, this is almost ceremonial.

I am concerned as to the effect the Court's action will negatively impact folks who have a real need for the benefits of the pardon they received.

But it doesn't.  There are two separate processes here.  The pardon removes all consequences of the conviction (sentence, restrictions for felons such as loss of right to vote or bear arms, etc.) but not the fact of the conviction.  Another section from the DOJ website referenced above:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What Arpaio is asking for is to have the conviction expunged and removed form his record.  As noted in the earlier quote from the website, this is a prerogative of the court and one that is very rarely granted.  If the conviction isn't expunged, the person receiving the pardon still gets the benefits of the pardon. 

The court's ruling just declines to expunge the conviction.  It does not affect Arpaio's pardon; they're two different things.  Neither does it affect any future pardons such as you were concerned about.

Since erasing the conviction is a separate issue from receiving a pardon, I respectfully request that the current thread title be changed, since it misleadingly implies that the two are linked.

[NewYorkExpress]

A pardon doesn't erase or remove a conviction.  The DOJ's own web site confirms this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As Arpaio is a misdemeanant, this is almost ceremonial.

I am concerned as to the effect the Court's action will negatively impact folks who have a real need for the benefits of the pardon they received.

But it doesn't.  There are two separate processes here.  The pardon removes all consequences of the conviction (sentence, restrictions for felons such as loss of right to vote or bear arms, etc.) but not the fact of the conviction.  Another section from the DOJ website referenced above:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What Arpaio is asking for is to have the conviction expunged and removed form his record.  As noted in the earlier quote from the website, this is a prerogative of the court and one that is very rarely granted.  If the conviction isn't expunged, the person receiving the pardon still gets the benefits of the pardon. 

The court's ruling just declines to expunge the conviction.  It does not affect Arpaio's pardon; they're two different things.  Neither does it affect any future pardons such as you were concerned about.

Since erasing the conviction is a separate issue from receiving a pardon, I respectfully request that the current thread title be changed, since it misleadingly implies that the two are linked.

I imagine to Arpaio, the two are linked.

[Fuzzy Bear]

A pardon doesn't erase or remove a conviction.  The DOJ's own web site confirms this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As Arpaio is a misdemeanant, this is almost ceremonial.

I am concerned as to the effect the Court's action will negatively impact folks who have a real need for the benefits of the pardon they received.

But it doesn't.  There are two separate processes here.  The pardon removes all consequences of the conviction (sentence, restrictions for felons such as loss of right to vote or bear arms, etc.) but not the fact of the conviction.  Another section from the DOJ website referenced above:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What Arpaio is asking for is to have the conviction expunged and removed form his record.  As noted in the earlier quote from the website, this is a prerogative of the court and one that is very rarely granted.  If the conviction isn't expunged, the person receiving the pardon still gets the benefits of the pardon. 

The court's ruling just declines to expunge the conviction.  It does not affect Arpaio's pardon; they're two different things.  Neither does it affect any future pardons such as you were concerned about.

Since erasing the conviction is a separate issue from receiving a pardon, I respectfully request that the current thread title be changed, since it misleadingly implies that the two are linked.

I imagine to Arpaio, the two are linked.

I should say that I was opposed to any pardon for Arpaio.  I don't feel bad about the result of the ruling here.  It's fitting punishment that Old Man Arpaio has to wake up and go to sleep knowing that he has a criminal record, and those he has injured can take satisfaction in the fact that he is undoubtedly galled at this thought.

My concern is for folks that would be negatively impacted as a result of this decision becoming a precedent.  If it's status quo for them, fine.  If the decision actually, in some way, diminishes the value of a pardon to the person receiving it, that's another thing.

Does this decision reduce the number of legal disabilities a pardon removes?  If it does for Arpaio, it does for everyone who's received a Federal pardon if this decision becomes a precedent.  I believe in Justice, but I believe in the application of mercy and restoration, also.  I would hate to think that, in outrage toward Arpaio, a Court has diminished the mercy granted to folks who, likely, are more in need of it than Sheriff Joe.