(08-03-2017, 06:02 AM)The Real Marty Wrote:

(08-02-2017, 06:17 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: Somebody educate me here, because none of the "news" stories make it clear.

A judge basically told him that he couldn't enforce a law?

He enforced the law anyway because it was part of his job?

Somehow because he enforced a law he is in contempt?

Since when can the judicial branch of government mandate what the executive branch of government does?

A judge can't tell a law enforcement person not to enforce any law.

 He apparently decided he was going to enforce immigration laws and find illegal immigrants.   He was sweeping up latinos without charge, and turning them over to the border patrol.   Someone brought a class-action racial profiling case and won.   (Seems like a slam dunk case to me.)

He continued to arrest people without charge, and so he went to trial for criminal contempt and got convicted. 

So basically, he lost a civil case, refused to abide by the ruling, and that is a crime.  So he was charged with criminal contempt.  

As for all of your questions about judicial vs executive branch, we have a system of checks and balances that prevents the executive branch from doing whatever it wants.  The Constitution.  The Sheriff doesn't have unlimited power to do whatever he wants, thank God.

So what you're saying is that a Judge ruled that he could not order his deputies to seek out and detain illegal aliens.  His deputies, under his orders continued to seek out and detain illegal aliens and somehow that's wrong?  After all, was he not enforcing immigration laws?

What am I missing here?

The Sheriff wasn't "doing whatever he wants", he was enforcing the law.  The judicial branch of government can't prevent law enforcement from enforcing "certain laws".

---