Sheriff of Maricopa County Arpaio: 'I will fight this to the bitter end' - Polidicks

[QUOTE](CNN) -- The sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, lashed out Thursday at Justice Department officials, calling their civil lawsuit alleging civil rights violations against him and his county politically motivated. [B]"They're using me for the Latino vote, showing that they're doing something, taking on the sheriff over an alleged racial profiling," Joe Arpaio told reporters in Phoenix. He vowed to defend himself, not for selfish purposes, but to help the thousands of other sheriffs in the country avoid finding themselves in similar situations. "I'm not going to surrender my office to the federal government," he said. "I will fight this to the bitter end."[/B] Arpaio rejected the Department of Justice's call for monitors to oversee the workings of his department. "That shows you they want to take over this office," he said. "Under this agreement with the so-called monitor, I'd probably have to clear every press release before I go public, especially having to do with illegal immigration, with the Department of Justice." Arpaio's remarks came hours after the Justice Department filed the civil lawsuit. "At its core, this is an abuse-of-power case involving a sheriff and sheriff's office that disregarded the Constitution, ignored sound police practices, compromised public safety, and did not hesitate to retaliate against perceived critics," said Assistant U.S. Attorney General Thomas Perez. The Justice Department had delivered in December a report with findings of civil rights violations and sought to fix them through a negotiated settlement with Maricopa County and its sheriff's office. Those talks broke down in February over Maricopa's refusal to consider any agreement that involved an independent monitor, Perez said. "Attempts to forge solutions to address the serious civil rights and public safety concerns have proven elusive," Perez said. According to the civil complaint, the sheriff's office has displayed a pattern of discrimination against Latinos, which includes racial profiling, unlawful detention and searches, and unlawful targeting of Latinos during raids. [B]The complaint also alleges that Maricopa detention officers discriminated against Latino prisoners in the jail. The targets were often prisoners who don't speak English well, Perez said. The jailers would give orders only in English, and when the prisoners didn't understand, they would place an entire area of the jail on lockdown for disobedience.[/B] "This incites obvious and unwarranted hostility toward the inmates, potentially placing prisoners and officers alike in harm's way," Perez said. Finally, the complaint recounts a number of cases in which Arpaio and his office allegedly retaliated against perceived enemies. These included judges, lawyers and community leaders who were critical, or perceived to be critical of Maricopa policies. "Nobody is above the law, and nobody can misuse the legal process to silence those with different opinions," Perez said. "Leadership starts at the top, and all of the alleged violations outlined in the complaint are the product of a culture of disregard for basic rights within MCSO that starts at the top and pervades the organization." The December letter said detention officers in Arpaio's jail invoked slurs and profanities against Latinos, calling them "wetbacks," "Mexican bitches" and "stupid Mexicans." Arpaio has denied any discrimination, and one of his attorneys called the Justice Department investigation a "witch hunt."[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/10/us/arizona-maricopa-lawsuit/index.html?hpt=ju_t5[/url]

“Clean your own house, Eric Holder, before you come trying to clean mine."

They need to get rid of Arpaio, not neuter the ability of the Sheriff. He's an elected state official and the federal government should have no say over the powers of his position. If he's reallly done something wrong, remove him. Willful abuse of his position is a crime that, with evidence, they can prosecute for. If not, leave it alone. The federal government has more than enough powers to target the individuals that are causing trouble within the MCSO.

[QUOTE=SilentOpp;35927795]He's an elected [B]state[/B] official and the [B]federal[/B] government should have no say over the powers of his position.[/QUOTE] That isn't how hierarchy works.

[QUOTE=Bletotum;35927822]That isn't how hierarchy works.[/QUOTE] No, that [B]is[/B] how hierarchy works here. Unless the position itself directly conflicts with the constitution or power assigned to the Federal government, they have no responsibility or authority over it. This is just like the state governors office or state senate. They are free to make legislation and take action over issues not assigned to the government. However, abuse allows federal regulators to prosecute the individuals when they overstep those bounds or commit crimes via their position. In the case of legislation, they can nullify it. They [U]can not[/U][B][/B] remove the powers of the position. Period. Local Law enforcement falls directly to the states, and states like AZ have assigned that responsibility to their respective counties(Maricopa, Pinal). Since he's an elected official of a state/county assigned responsibility, he has no obligation to allow this monitor, which is why the Federal government is getting pissy. I really don't like Joe, but I do not support the installation of a government monitor for all major decisions. That is not their place. I want them to go after him, his command staff, and any abusive officers. Which is EXACTLY what it sounds like they are going to do.

please make him wear the pink undies please oh please ironing attack

[QUOTE=SilentOpp;35927795]He's an elected state official and the federal government should have no say over the powers of his position.[/QUOTE] That isn't how it works. That wasn't how it worked when Blagojevich was tried in a federal court. That isn't how it works when a local state official is violating federal standards. You break federal law, you deal with the federal government. It isn't fucking rocket science. Civil Rights are federally assured. The states can go fuck themselves when they start violating them. By the time they reach that point, they don't get to handle their own shit anymore given they're clearly incapable of it. [editline]12th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=SilentOpp;35927891]No, that [B]is[/B] how hierarchy works here.[/QUOTE] No it fucking isn't. You break federal laws, you deal with the federal government. That's why we HAVE a federal government. The states are not sovereign nations in and of themselves; they answer to the top levels of government. Stop talking out of your ass.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35928370]That isn't how it works. That wasn't how it worked when Blagojevich was tried in a federal court. That isn't how it works when a local state official is violating federal standards. You break federal law, you deal with the federal government. It isn't fucking rocket science. [editline]12th May 2012[/editline] No it fucking isn't. You break federal laws, you deal with the federal government. That's why we HAVE a federal government. The states are not sovereign nations in and of themselves; they answer to the top levels of government. Stop talking out of your ass.[/QUOTE] Nice job actually reading what he said and getting hostile for no reason. He said that the individual should be prosecuted, but the Feds cannot decide that the power allocated to an elected position is wrong unless what that specific person did actually broke the law. So you basically agreed with him.

[QUOTE=BurningPlayd0h;35928446]Nice job actually reading what he said and getting hostile for no reason. He said that the individual should be prosecuted, but the Feds cannot decide that the power allocated to an elected position is wrong unless what that specific person did actually broke the law. So you basically agreed with him.[/QUOTE] Violating civil rights is breaking the law. It simply typically carries civil charges, and not criminal.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35928485]Violating civil rights is breaking the law. It simply typically carries civil charges, and not criminal.[/QUOTE] Difference being? Not being an ass, I honestly don't know.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;35928501]Difference being? Not being an ass, I honestly don't know.[/QUOTE] Civil charges are decided in civil court. Criminal in criminal, etc. If you beat someone up, you go to criminal court. If you violate a contract, you go to civil court. Civil court usually carries discretionary sentencing on the part of the judge (or the arbitrator), and typically doesn't involve any potential jail-time (unless you perjure yourself.) So, say, if you're running a business and you refuse to hire black people, you'll get tried in the state civil courts. [I]However[/I], if you [I]are[/I] a part of the state government, acting in such a way that the state government approved of, then the federal government steps in to enforce its own laws. You must be able to see how the Arizona state government [B]cannot[/B] be trusted to handle this? They're the ones who allowed it to happen. They aren't going to solve a problem they created. This is why we have a federal government with the ability to intervene. You guys can feel bad for some pissant sheriff if you want. I'm more concerned with the thousands of latinos that he and his kind have been fucking with. He can call it politically motivated if he wants. Doesn't change the fact that he broke the law.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35928485]Violating civil rights is breaking the law. It simply typically carries civil charges, and not criminal.[/QUOTE] Youre right, and I hate the sheriff and what hes done, but the Federal government is not meant to have "advisors" evaluating every decision a state government makes. If the police department is violating civil rights, then prosecute the people who did it, dont take over the department itself. Or if a law is unconstitutional, then have the courts strike it down.

[QUOTE=BurningPlayd0h;35928666]Youre right, and I hate the sheriff and what hes done, but the Federal government is not meant to have "advisors" evaluating every decision a state government makes.[/QUOTE] Where the fuck are you getting this from? They have advisers evaluating the decisions that are racist and unconstitutional. I don't know how you expect a federal government to operate if you simultaneously expect it to close its eyes and go "LALALALALA" in regards to everything the lower levels of government are doing. You're pissed because they're [I]paying attention?[/I] Dude, knowing what's going on in the nation is sort of important if they're going to enforce federal laws.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35928678]Where the fuck are you getting this from? They have advisers evaluating the decisions that are racist and unconstitutional. I don't know how you expect a federal government to operate if you simultaneously expect it to close its eyes and go "LALALALALA" in regards to everything the lower levels of government are doing. You're pissed because they're [I]paying attention?[/I][/QUOTE] No Im not pissed theres an investigation, and if peoe are really having their rights violated then there should be charges brought against the leadership of the department, but it is not for the Federal government to be actively running a county police department.

Dude, I don't think you know how the justice system works. It sort of requires investigation to, you know, prove shit. [editline]12th May 2012[/editline] What is sounds like to me is that you're pissed that someone is investigating [I]police[/I], which is something that is too goddamn rare already.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35928581]Civil charges are decided in civil court. Criminal in criminal, etc. If you beat someone up, you go to criminal court. If you violate a contract, you go to civil court. Civil court usually carries discretionary sentencing on the part of the judge (or the arbitrator), and typically doesn't involve any potential jail-time (unless you perjure yourself.) So, say, if you're running a business and you refuse to hire black people, you'll get tried in the state civil courts. [I]However[/I], if you [I]are[/I] a part of the state government, acting in such a way that the state government approved of, then the federal government steps in to enforce its own laws. You must be able to see how the Arizona state government [B]cannot[/B] be trusted to handle this? They're the ones who allowed it to happen. They aren't going to solve a problem they created. This is why we have a federal government with the ability to intervene. You guys can feel bad for some pissant sheriff if you want. I'm more concerned with the thousands of latinos that he and his kind have been fucking with. He can call it politically motivated if he wants. Doesn't change the fact that he broke the law.[/QUOTE] I don't get it. Are you actually arguing with me? So far, you've done nothing but tell me to stop talking out of my ass, then you go on to repeat what I've said. Which is, the Federal government needs to step in AND GO AFTER JOE ARPAIO AND HIS TEAM. I'm not saying the state government should handle it. I am criticizing the Federal Government for attempting to undermine the authority of the elected MCSO Sheriff's position. Not for their assault on Arpaio and his illegal practices. What the fuck are you on about? Honestly? The only thing I disagree with you on is the notion that the Federal Government has more power than the states. That is false. The Government has only certain powers, the rest of which fall to the States. The main topic being the position of Sheriff and the installation of a Federal monitor, which would undermine the [B]state[/B] authority on law enforcement. Arpaio has broken the law and abused his position. That means eliminate Arpaio, not the authority of the position.

[QUOTE=SilentOpp;35928748]The only thing I disagree with you on is the notion that the Federal Government has more power than the states. That is false.[/QUOTE] And you're getting this from where? Considering the federal equivalents of all government institutions have always had the power to override their state-level counterparts, I don't see how you can possible believe that shit. [editline]12th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=SilentOpp;35928748]The main topic being the position of Sheriff and the installation of a Federal monitor, which would undermine the [B]state[/B] authority on law enforcement.[/QUOTE] And the [I]state[/I] chose to allow police discrimination against latinos, so the [I]state[/I] can go fuck itself.

[B]Exclusive Powers of the National Government[/B] Under the Constitution, powers reserved to the national government include: •Print money (bills and coins) •Declare war •Establish an army and navy •Enter into treaties with foreign governments •Regulate commerce between states and international trade •Establish post offices and issue postage •Make laws necessary to enforce the Constitution Exclusive Powers of State Governments [B]Powers reserved to state governments include:[/B] •Establish local governments •Issue licenses (driver, hunting, marriage, etc.) •Regulate intrastate (within the state) commerce •Conduct elections •Ratify amendments to the U.S. Constitution •[U][/U][B]Provide for public health and safety[/B] •Exercise powers neither delegated to the national government or prohibited from the states by the U.S. •Constitution (For example, setting legal drinking and smoking ages.) [B]Powers Shared by National and State Government[/B] Shared, or "concurrent" powers include: •Setting up courts •Creating and collecting taxes •Building highways •Borrowing money •[B]Making and enforcing laws[/B] (state enforces state laws, federal departments enforce federal laws) •Chartering banks and corporations •Spending money for the betterment of the general welfare •Taking (condemning) private property with just compensation I understand you might not live in the U.S, but this is basic U.S Government and Constitution. Please, read up on it. There are federal powers, state powers, and powers that are shared. End of story. The entire setup places a balance in power between the states and federal government. Shamelessly stolen from about.com. [QUOTE]And the [I]state[/I] chose to allow police discrimination against latinos, so the [I]state[/I] can go fuck itself.[/QUOTE] No, Joe Arpaio allowed his department to discriminate. It wasn't the State, Arizona simply deligated it's powers to more localized departments, and this one specific department has most certainly gone rogue. That is the issue here. Not 'fucking' the state. At the end of the day, no one is defending Joe Arpaio and everyone wants to see him behind bars. What is your issue with this? Do you want to MCSO to lose it's authority? And if so, why?

[QUOTE=SilentOpp;35928839]Do you want to MCSO to lose it's authority? And if so, why?[/QUOTE] Their authority to discriminate? Yes. I shouldn't have to explain that. If it takes butchering the authority of that entire department to tear those powers from their hands, that is what will happen. They would save themselves a shitload of trouble if they'd give them up willingly. And you can quote About.com all you want. Little Rock Central High School. The governor of Alabama called in the Alabama National Guard (which falls directly under the command of the state government, i.e. the governor) to keep black students out of the school following federal desegregation rulings. The state decided it thought it was more powerful than the federal government. Want to guess what happened? That's right. President Eisenhower federalized the entirety of the Alabama National Guard and also deployed the 101st Airborne to protect and escort black students [I]into[/I] the school. The students would continue to be protected by the 101st and the National Guard for a year. The state government of Alabama petitioned its rights to segregate, and in doing so they [I]lost[/I] powers. Would you like to tell me how the state governments are more powerful again?

[QUOTE=Lankist;35928990]Their authority to discriminate? Yes. I shouldn't have to explain that. And you can quote About.com all you want. Little Rock Central High School. The governor of Alabama called in the Alabama National Guard (which falls directly under the command of the state government, i.e. the governor) to keep black students out of the school following federal desegregation rulings. The state decided it thought it was more powerful than the federal government. Want to guess what happened? That's right. President Eisenhower federalized the entirety of the Alabama National Guard and also deployed the 101st Airborne to protect and escort black students [I]into[/I] the school. Would you like to tell me how the state governments are more powerful again?[/QUOTE] Okay well, you don't seem to understand anything, so I'll lay it out plainly for you. The MCSO doesn't have the authority to discriminate. That is the basis of these complaints, if you had read the original article. Everyone agrees this is a problem. Now, the U.S Government is trying to install a Federal monitor who will go/no go all decisions in an attempt to rectify this. This A) Lets Joe off easy and B) Undermines the authority of his position, without actually prosecuting him. This is stupid and unfair to Maricopa County and the state of Arizona. The U.S Government, who yes, can enforce civil rights, absolutely needs to take action and remove Joe Arpaio from office because he is discriminating. In a perfect world, they'd throw him in jail for the rest of his life. A new elected official needs to take his place. Just because the position has been abused by one man(and his team) does not give the federal government authority to check that positions power to make decisions. That's be like installing a monitor in the office of the president, an elected official, after the fucking watergate scandal. Again, you misunderstood me. I said there is a balance of power. You are not going to sit here, and change that fact, with your one stupid little example. Nor am I going to sit here and explain constitutional law, seperation of powers, the branches of the Federal government, or any of that shit to you because you are too goddamn lazy to do it yourself. Stop talking out of your ass and open up Wikipedia for once. I'm done arguing with you. You've basically fallen into Joe's trap, just to let you know. He's trying to turn the backlash against his illegal decisions into an assault on the position of MCSO. He's doing this to protect himself, I doubt he honestly cares about the power of the MCSO. I want to see his ass in Jail. Get on board already.

FYI that "shitty little example" is the principle precedence for how the federal government handles civil rights violations. Also please, continue explaining the Constitution to me. Really because I find it so enlightening to have a document hanging from my wall to be explained to me by someone who reads about it on Wikipedia and About.com.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35929159]FYI that "shitty little example" is the principle precedence for how the federal government handles civil rights violations. Also please, continue explaining the Constitution to me. Really because I find it so enlightening to have a document hanging from my wall to be explained to me by someone who reads about it on Wikipedia.[/QUOTE] You are a complete fool if you think that you can understand the scope and impact of the United States Constitution just by having it hanging on your wall. Hell, you could read the whole thing and have it memorized word for word, but you still couldn't apply it in today's world. There are people that study for years just to get a degree on this. Those same people, along with other contributors, have examined and evaluated every bill, presidential act, and court decision, along with it's constitutionality, and posted the results on Wikipedia. So, technically, I can say you can learn more from Wikipedia than having it hanging on your wall.

[QUOTE=SilentOpp;35929256]You are a complete fool if you think that you can understand the scope and impact of the United States Constitution just by having it hanging on your wall. Hell, you could read the whole thing and have it memorized word for word, but you still couldn't apply in today's world. There are people that study for years just to get a degree on this. Those same people, along with other contributors, have examined and evaluated every impact and decision, along with it's constitutionality, and posted the results on Wikipedia. So, technically, I can say I know more by reading Wikipedia, even if that was my only source(which it isn't).[/QUOTE] It's hanging on my wall for a reason. It's not because it looks good. I've really tried not to pull the argument by authority recently, under the presumption that folks can actually read about the shit I reference, but goddamn you are making it difficult right now with your "I know more than you because Wikipedia." [QUOTE=SilentOpp;35929256]There are people that study for years just to get a degree on this.[/QUOTE] NO SHIT?

[QUOTE=Lankist;35929286]It's hanging on my wall for a reason. It's not because it looks good. I've really tried not to pull the argument by authority recently, but goddamn you are making it difficult right now with your "I know more than you because Wikipedia."[/QUOTE] You're studying constitutional law? That's great. Where'd you get the wall space for every bill, ammendment, and court decision as well?

[QUOTE=Lankist;35929159]FYI that "shitty little example" is the principle precedence for how the federal government handles civil rights violations. Also please, continue explaining the Constitution to me. Really because I find it so enlightening to have a document hanging from my wall to be explained to me by someone who reads about it on Wikipedia and About.com.[/QUOTE] Are you serious right now? Your little example is pure bullshit because it doesn't even begin to pertain to this situation. A governor tried to use the military, and the president overpowered him. That's why it was legal. This is not a military situation. It doesn't even remotely apply. And you have a constitution. That's nice. I can buy one in a gift shop too!

[QUOTE=Morcam;35929320]Are you serious right now? Your little example is pure bullshit because it doesn't even begin to pertain to this situation. A governor tried to use the military, and the president overpowered him. That's why it was legal. This is not a military situation. It doesn't even remotely apply.[/QUOTE] National Guard is not a federal military, it falls completely into the sovereignty of the states in the same way that police forces do. [editline]12th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=SilentOpp;35929315]You're studying constitutional law? That's great. Where'd you get the wall space for every bill, ammendment, and court decision as well?[/QUOTE] Nice side-step, Captain Wikipedia. Seriously. I am TRYING to be nice here. Trying to speak to you as an equal. Do NOT play the subject-authority games with me.

Another thread ruined by Lankist

[QUOTE=Lankist;35929337]National Guard is not a federal military, it falls completely into the sovereignty of the states in the same way that police forces do. [/QUOTE] Here, you don't mind if I quote wikipedia, do you? [QUOTE]The Constitution of the United States specifically charges the National Guard with dual federal and state missions. In fact, the National Guard is the only United States military force empowered to function in a state status. Those functions range from limited actions during non-emergency situations to full scale law enforcement of martial law when local law enforcement officials can no longer maintain civil control. [B]The National Guard may be called into federal service in response to a call by the President or Congress.[/B][/QUOTE] Or maybe you're just trolling. That would be rather reassuring.

[QUOTE=Morcam;35929384]Here, you don't mind if I quote wikipedia, do you?[/QUOTE] Yes. The national guard may be federalized. Which is what happened. After the States attempted to use it to subvert federal will. Perhaps you should read the thread. Captain Wikipedia says the states are more powerful than the federal government, and the fed should have no say over how state-run organizations operate. I disagreed. Provided important historical precedence to back it up. I'm sorry, but please don't come into the middle of a discussion just to argue semantics without even attempting to understand what the point of contention actually is.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35929410]Yes. The national guard may be federalized. Which is what happened. After the States attempted to use it to subvert federal will. Perhaps you should read the thread. Captain Wikipedia says the states are more powerful than the federal government, and the fed should have no say over how state-run organizations operate. I disagreed. Provided important historical precedence to back it up. I'm sorry, but please don't come into the middle of a discussion just to argue semantics without even attempting to understand what the point of contention actually is.[/QUOTE] Captain Law Professor cant even remember my argument of balanced powers. Unless you are specifically arguing over local law enforcement, in which case yes, the State has more authority here to dictate the powers of it's law enforcement. That doesn't make the state more powerful.