(08-28-2017, 12:57 PM)MalabarJag Wrote:

(08-28-2017, 10:34 AM)rollerjag Wrote: The judge was a Clinton appointee and the AG doesn't direct the decisions of judges, so the straws you grasp are irrelevant.

Sent from my LG-V520 using Tapatalk

You mentioned the Justice Dept. as a source of your info ... without providing any actual info. 

A Clinton appointed judge is mostly likely a partisan Dem, most of whom defend illegal entry. I don't see how that changes my comment about partisan judges.

I have no sympathy for Arpaio, who seems to me like a stereotypical overzealous cop, but I'd like to see some actual facts before I judge whether or not it was a mistake to pardon him.

I asked. So far you have responded with nothing. In particular you haven't provided any evidence that skin color was the factor in who was detained, which was your original claim. Profiling based on skin color is unconstitutional. Profiling based on ability to speak English is not. If the profiling was based on the latter (which I deem much more likely, since Mexicans come in all colors) then the judge was acting as a partisan rather than an objective protector of the law.

I never mentioned the Justice Dept., I referred to the judge's decision, you conflated judges with the AG.

Ok, I will concede your point, there is no evidence I can find anyone was detained solely because their skin color was brown. I meant it as a euphamism, but you got me on a technicality. Bravo. But, despite your attempt to discredit the judge as partisan, the fact is enough evidence of illegal profiling was presented for a federal judge to order Arpaio to stop, which he openly defied.

Arpaio wasn't merely a typical overzealous cop, he was Trump's kind of cop. Check him out, let it sink in.

---