(08-03-2017, 04:59 PM)jagibelieve Wrote:

(08-03-2017, 04:17 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: I don't know how to explain it any better.   Let me try again.  

It was a clear cut case of racial profiling.   He was sweeping up Latinos without charge, and turning them over to the border patrol.   Someone brought a class action lawsuit, and he lost.  

We have a Constitution.  You can't just arrest people because they're brown.  That's what he was doing. 

So the judge rules, he has to stop doing that.   But he ignores the judge and goes on doing it.  That turns it from a civil case into a criminal case.  

You don't seem to understand the Constitution at all.  You say, "The judicial branch of government can't prevent law enforcement from enforcing "certain laws.""   They absolutely can.  The judicial branch can stop the government from doing things.   That's what they are there for.   If you don't like it, you can appeal it all the way to the Supreme Court.   But no matter who you are, you cannot ignore a court order period. 

You act like the Sheriff is the king of the world, and he should be able to do whatever he wants.   No, he cannot.   We have courts, we have judges, we have a CONSTITUTION.   Thank God we do, or else some day some law enforcement person might decide to arrest you without charge, because you fall into some ethnic group or maybe he just thinks you look kind of suspicious.  

You really think the Sheriff should be free to do whatever he wants?  Seriously?  And no one can stop him?

Was he "sweeping up Latinos" or was he sweeping up illegal aliens?  Arresting without charge?  Were Latinos that are legal U.S. citizens arrested "without charge"?  Latinos arrested that are not U.S. citizens certainly do have a charge against them.  They are illegal aliens.  They broke the law by entering the country illegally so therefor they are not "arrested without charge".  It doesn't matter how they were caught, they still broke the law.

You are wrong regarding the judicial branch.  They cannot rule to prevent the enforcement of existing law.  The most that they can do is rule a law un-constitutional.

That didn't happen in this case.

Put it this way, if a judge ruled that law enforcement officers cannot arrest child sexual predators, would that prohibit law enforcement from doing so?  Under your flawed logic, yes.

I will try one last time. 

I don't think the judge ruled that he couldn't arrest illegal aliens.   I think the judge ruled that he couldn't arrest latinos under suspicion that they were illegal aliens, without having a cause to do so. 

There was a civil case against him for racial profiling.   He lost that case.   So the court ordered him to stop doing things the way he was doing them.  They weren't telling him to stop enforcing the law.   They were saying the way he was enforcing the law was illegal.  

But then he refused to follow the judge's order.  Refusing to follow a court order is a crime.   So then he gets charged and convicted for that crime.  And that's why he's going to jail, pending appeal.

Now, about your question about child sexual predators. If a sheriff decided that most child sexual predators were on the westside of Jacksonville, would that give him the right to search every hard drive on west side Jacksonville for child pornography? Of course not. Any judge would rule, you cannot do that. So a judge has the right to put a stop to illegal acts by the Sheriff. And that's what happened in this case. The judge ruled that Sheriff Arpaio was acting illegally, and told him to stop. A judge does have the right to rule that law enforcement is acting illegally.

You see, your assertion "it doesn't matter how they were caught..." is wrong. If a cop enters your house without a warrant and searches it, that is illegal, and a judge would throw out whatever evidence they found. He wouldn't be "stopping them from enforcing the law." He would be stopping them from acting illegally.

---