Its surprising how much you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit
This should be a wake up call to the good Sheriff. He cannot get out of the legal tangle he is in. We think Sheriff Arpaio did everything right when it came to stopping and arresting illegal residents. But when he refused to cooperate with Judge Snow, he made life a lot more difficult for himself. It was not his job to decide whethter the judge was right or not. His job was to show up, be respectful and argue his case. Arpaio supporters claim Judge Snow should be impeached, recalled, forced to resign, etc. Anything to punish the judge, who may well need it!
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Monday let stand lower court rulings that said Maricopa County is responsible for controversial policing practices of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department under former Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
It’s the second time this year the high court has refused to hear an appeal from the county in the racial profiling case, after rejecting a similar claim in April. That means a 2018 ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals – which itself has rebuffed the county on four different occasions – remains in place.
That ruling said that court-ordered remedies to the sheriff’s department practice of “routinely” targeting Latino drivers “for pretextual traffic stops aimed at detecting violations of federal immigration law” were appropriate. And it said the county should be held responsible for the actions of Arpaio and his deputies.
In its latest appeal, the county argued that the lower courts’ rulings were a “massive usurpation of law enforcement managerial functions, with costs likely running into the millions of dollars.” The remedies imposed by the court also handcuffed Arpaio’s successors “in the areas of employee management, internal investigations, and discipline almost to the vanishing point.”
Those arguments were rejected both by attorneys for Latino residents of Arizona who brought the suit and by the U.S. solicitor general, who said the lower court rulings were well-reasoned and urged the Supreme Court to deny the case.
Calls to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, the sheriff’s office and county supervisors were not immediately returned Monday. Requests for comment from the Justice Department, the plaintiffs’ attorneys and from Latino advocacy and civil rights groups were also not returned.
The case began in 2008 when Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, an Arizona citizen, and others filed suit claiming they were racially profiled, stopped by sheriff’s deputies merely because of their race.
In 2013, U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow ordered Arpaio and his officers to stop detaining people based only on their race, saying that the department could only hold people if they were suspected of committing a crime.
“In the absence of additional facts that would provide reasonable suspicion that a person committed a federal criminal offense either in entering or staying in this country, it is not a violation of federal criminal law to be in this country without authorization in and of itself,” Snow wrote then.
Despite that order, however, the court found that the department continued the practice of racially profiling Latinos, leading to charges of criminal contempt of court against Arpaio and his deputies. In finding Arpaio guilty of contempt, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton said in July 2017 that there were multiple instances in which Arpaio said he intended to ignore the court ruling and continue using the same enforcement tactics as before.
Something is wrong with our legal system that has degenerated to the point where one obviously biased judge can force a major shift in law based on his or her personal opinion and/or hatred of the defendant. The judge should throw a law he objectively interprets as unconstitutional back to the Congress or Legislature for tweaking, more specificity, etc. His judgment is not supposed to become a from-the-bench issuance of mandated new law or throwing out of existing legislative law. We need more people to stand up to rogue Men in Black. Shame on the Supreme Court for not getting involved in what could have been one of their most important outcomes -- spelling out just how far can a judge can legally go to force his arbitrary decision on society according to the limits of the Constitution. But I suspect they are afraid of bringing transparency to rogue, activist judges making law and the ramifications thereof.
I really liked Sheriff Arpaio and his practices that reduced crime. I also think they were gunning for him and falsely accused him. All that said, I think he should enjoy his retirement.