Should Joe Arpaio Be Appealing the Melendres Ruling?

Categories: Morning Poll
arpaio-photo3.jpg
MCSO


As expected, Sheriff Joe Arpaio's lawyer filed a notice of appeal over the permanent injunction in the racial-profiling case against the Sheriff, Melendres v. Arpaio.

The Feathered Bastard previously reported that the taxpayers already are on the hook for millions in legal fees, and this decision to appeal wasn't even approved by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors -- at least, not formally.

See also:
-Joe Arpaio Appeals Judge Snow's Permanent Injunction in Melendres

However, it looks like the taxpayers will soon be due for more cash, as Arpaio's lawyer is appealing Judge Snow's order, which includes the appointment of an independent monitor, to keep the office from engaging in any racial profiling.

Do you think an appeal is really necessary, given the ever-climbing taxpayer costs?

Cast your vote below:


Send feedback and tips to the author.
Follow Matthew Hendley on Twitter at @MatthewHendley.



My Voice Nation Help
37 comments
squash
squash

Where's YPS at to liken people who don't think Joe should appeal to people who don't think anybody should be ALLOWED to appeal?

danzigsdaddy
danzigsdaddy topcommenter

yes Joe should be able to appeal, for a few reasons ................#1 if we are against his ability to appeal, we are one step closer to violating his rights like he violates the rights of others. #2 if he appeals and loses (which he will), that will show as another definitive loss by him in court and make further action against him easier.   #3 when he loses the appeal, we will be able to hear JAFfy give out the "Charlie Brown" cry of "AAAAAAUUUUUGGGHHHH" all the way from Fresno

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

I'm not a fan of Arpaio, but I'm also not convinced that the judge has the authority to impose this order, so yes, it should be appealed.   Allowing federal judges to impose their will in ways that are not actually allowed by law is more dangerous to individual liberty than any of Arpaio's policies.


HaddieNuff
HaddieNuff

Of course he shouldn't appeal the decision/monitor, especially without BOS approval. Historically, however, Arpaio has flaunted such things and gotten away with it; this includes the misspending of the approximately $100 million of jail funds.  How can this appeal possibly surprise anyone?

It's a win-win situation for Arpaio. If the appeal goes down in flame, it's not cost him a penny, and he can hold a press conference (photo op) whining about how picked upon he is. It's typical Joe, but as long as Maricopa voters keep putting this person in office, apparently they don't mind seeing tax dollars go for this kind of nonsense.

DNichols
DNichols

Poor Convicted Racist little Arpaio, I bet he thought for sure he had destroyed enough evidence not to be convicted in the first place.

Arpaio wan'ts our laws to be enforced, just not against his Criminal Actions?!

MaskedMagician1967
MaskedMagician1967 topcommenter

If the Fetid Failure wants to personally foot the bill for it I'm all for it.

The BOS needs to do something to rein his ass in, especially because of ARS 11-251. That law charges the Supes specifically with supervising County officials, including the stupid old man. They also have final say on whether accounts legally chargeable to the County are paid.

robert_graham
robert_graham

Absolutely because if DREAMers are allowed to appeal Jan Brewers decision to not give them drivers licenses, why shouldn't Arpaio be allowed to appeal the Melendres ruling?

john043012
john043012 topcommenter

The sooner the monitor shows up the better for everyone , As far are our illegal immigrants if they break a law and are captured they will be detained, jailed , and most likely deported.

HaddieNuff
HaddieNuff

 I believe the law Arpaio was found to be in violation of is a federal law.That being the case, the federal judge has every right and the authority to impose this order.

Like it or not, federal law trumps state law.  Every time.  (Article 6, clause 2 of the US Constitution, also known as the Supremacy Clause)  Even if the state had a law allowing racial profiling, it would not stand up to and/or overturn the federal law.   There have been several court cases on this subject, including a 2008 Supreme Court decision called Altria Group v Good. Googling the topic will offer far more information that I can here.

MaskedMagician1967
MaskedMagician1967 topcommenter

Valley, if a federal judge can't force the MCSO to change via a monitor, and the DOJ also wants a monitor, how do you expect the MCSO to start policing in the 21st Century?

I highly doubt Judge Snow's rulings will be overturned especially in light of the DOJ's findings, 18 months before the judge ruled against Arpaio.

MaskedMagician1967
MaskedMagician1967 topcommenter

Robert, just out of curiosity is your full name Robert Sean Graham?

MaskedMagician1967
MaskedMagician1967 topcommenter

Robert, DREAMers are using their OWN MONEY to pay for legal help, court fees etc.

The Flaccid Failure, however, is at the mercy of the BOS as to whether an appeal is funded for his bullshit, as dictated by Arizona Revised Statute 11-251.

Flyer9753
Flyer9753 topcommenter

@robert_graham 

Hey were is my subpoena bitch?? When are you going to come FUCK ME UP with that tire iron or baseball bat like you threatened?? 

Typical JAFfy, doesn't do anything he says he is going to since he's actually just a wimpy little troll who likes to register homosexual web sites since he can't get any dick of his own.. on someone else or between his own legs... go back to sniffing..oops.. pumping gas in Fresno JAFfy or come assault me like the threatened to...

That rope you put around your own neck keeps getting tighter and tighter the more you babble JAFfy

JustThinking
JustThinking

@robert_graham DO you even live here dipshit? Some of us are tired of writing checks for this crap, enough is enough. Besides as usual you are off topic and make zero sense

DNichols
DNichols

@John:  Too bad the monitor can't help Arizona's Justice System break thier love affair with Racist Child Molesters like Arpaio, and Montgomery's B.F.F. Chris Simcox?!!

MaskedMagician1967
MaskedMagician1967 topcommenter

John, remember that the Supreme Court allowed challenges to Section 2(b) of BS1070 if it could be proven that racial profiling was rampant.

Judge Snow's rulings and the DOJ findings certainly make clear that the Supreme Court needs to void BS1070.

I sure hope the Supreme Court voids BS1070.

robert_graham
robert_graham

@john043012 DUH!!  What part about the word ILLEGAL don't you understand? People who are here ILLEGALLY of course face the consequences of deportation.

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@HaddieNuff  

The question has nothing to do with whether Arpaio violated any law, but only about the legality of the remedy imposed by the court.

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@MaskedMagician1967  

It's not up to me to figure out how to implement what the DOJ wants.  If the way they try isn't legal, they must not be allowed to do it that way.   It's really not ok to allow the federal government to ignore the rules "for our own good".

MaskedMagician1967
MaskedMagician1967 topcommenter

As I said via email Flyer, just sue the fool. He'll learn real quick not to run his mouth when he has a huge judgment to pay.

squash
squash

@Flyer9753 Yep, that's Jaffy boy for ya. All talk - no follow through.

david_saint01
david_saint01 topcommenter

@robert_graham lol what part about the Supreme courts ruling that being in the country without papers ISNT ILLEGAL dont you understand?!? What part about racial profiling being ILLEGAL cant you understand? lol time to come back to reality bobbi 

shadeaux14
shadeaux14

@robert_graham  

And sheriffs who violate peoples CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS should face the consequences of their actions. What part of  UNCONSTITUTIONAL don't you understand Jaffy?

HaddieNuff
HaddieNuff

@valleynative Guess we'll find out eventually if Snow overstepped his authority.

squash
squash

@valleynative What I find quite telling is that Snow - who is a conservative - found it appropriate (and legal) for MCSO to have a monitor. 

danzigsdaddy
danzigsdaddy topcommenter

@valleynative whom would you like to see discussing it?  do you mean it as in a debate type discussion? or as in a council type discussion?

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@TheChef  

I think Judge Snow made a decision.  I'd like to see several more people discuss it in a legal, adversarial manner.  See the difference?

TheChef
TheChef

"I don't necessarily object to the remedy, but rather to the federal court assuming that they have the power to impose this remedy.  Maybe they do, but I want to know that somebody sat down and discussed the matter thoroughly."

What, precisely, do you think happened in court? What precisely do you think happened while Judge Snow was taking 6 months to issue his decision?

danzigsdaddy
danzigsdaddy topcommenter

@valleynative i know you arent a Arpaio supporter,  i was just making an observation. as for the feds..............i dont trust our government either and am very suspicious of just about everything they do. but the way i see it, if they have a goal similar to mine...........i am still not trusting them, but i am appreciative of them (for the time being). as for the feds being involved in this, its because everything was exhausted at the state level with no remediation so it was advanced up to the federal level it is at now. if our state cant and wont do anything, i can understand the feds stepping in

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@danzigsdaddy @valleynative  

I don't necessarily object to the remedy, but rather to the federal court assuming that they have the power to impose this remedy.  Maybe they do, but I want to know that somebody sat down and discussed the matter thoroughly.

There's a large overlap (of which I am not a member) between people who support Joe and people who want the federal government to play very strictly by the rules and to keep their hands outside of the State boundaries as much as possible.

danzigsdaddy
danzigsdaddy topcommenter

@valleynative i find nothing wrong with the remedy. the remedy is having a person or people observing with out making command decisions or affecting command decisions. if Joe wants to ease the load of lawsuits, an observer is one way to do that,  if we need further proof of Joe's wrong doing, the observer is our ticket to catch it. i dont understand why his supporters are so against it, if he truly is innocent, heres how he can prove it

MaskedMagician1967
MaskedMagician1967 topcommenter

I agree with you on the feds ignoring the rules for our own good valley.

However, I do believe that when government is abusive towards people and are out of control, the Court must step in and put a stop to the abuse.

A monitor could be viewed as simply a remedy to an abusive and out of control law-enforcement agency and that the judge felt he had no choice but to rule the way he did.

I do believe there is a history of monitors being appointed either via the DOJ or through the Court.

yourproductsucks2
yourproductsucks2 topcommenter

Im not concerned either way. Im simply pointing out the irony involving posters relationships with a poster named jaf

THE_JUDGE
THE_JUDGE

@yourproductsucks2 jaffy denies that he is  the "robert graham" who lives in fresno and has multiple teenage boy sex sites registered in his name. If he is not that "robert graham" the name is so common at to render him anonymity also. Furthermore what possible damages could he suffer from the "libel". His comments have been so egregiously foul that his own words have done more to erode his respectability than anything that has been said here. Additionally, if any legal action is brought, his comments under all of his screen names will be made available, again rendering any claim he may make null and void.

So please jaffy ,find an attorney and file a suit.  I would love nothing more than your despicable ramblings to see the light of day in a court of law. Hopefully there will be a few of my Latino brothers on the jury. 

As a "lawman" yourself yps wouldn't you be concerned this poster is making terrorist threats in your jurisdiction ? You seem more focused on protecting this shitbags "good name".........pathetic

yourproductsucks2
yourproductsucks2 topcommenter

Graham can say what he wants to flyer, who is an anonymous user. Graham hasnt the means to carry out any action against flyer because flyer isa fictitious character.. Robert, however, has possibly been identified and his address had been published and his place of employment has been identified... and numerous people have made claims that he is a child pornographer... if the claim is untrue, is libel and slander...

MaskedMagician1967
MaskedMagician1967 topcommenter

Explain YPS. I'd like to see where you come from on this.

yourproductsucks2
yourproductsucks2 topcommenter

flyer is not a victim of threats or intimidation or harassment by Robert Graham. ironically, it's Robert who is being victimized by flyer. Its flyer who's slandered and attacked Robert.

Now Trending

Phoenix Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

General

Home

Loading...