Contempt of court because a judge told him to stop enforcing a written law. Not that he was enforcing in improperly, or he should have enforced it differently, or a hold on the enforcement of the law because it was in the process of being changed. Those would have added different charges.
And I'm sure that there's no coincidence that the state department announced the contempt charge on the eve of early voting.

(August 26, 2017 at 8:30 am)Court Jester Wrote: Come on. He was convicted of upholding the immigration laws as it was written after he was told not to. He wasn't charged with racial issues or laws, abuse of power, or criminal activity. He was charged for doing his job.
If people don't like the laws, they should be changed. You can't just tell a law enforcement officail "I don't like that one. Overlook that one."

Where is it written in the immigration laws that law enforcement officials can racially profile Hispanics and violate their constitutional rights?

Why wasn't he charged for that then?

(August 26, 2017 at 8:51 am)Court Jester Wrote: Why wasn't he charged for that then?

You'd have to ask the prosecutors, who (surprise!) chose not to cross a law enforcement figure popular with a certain, fairly large, crowd and who wielded some political power.

Show me where in the law it's written that sheriffs are empowered to detain people on the basis of their ethnicity and in the absence of a reasonable suspicion that a law had been violated.

(August 26, 2017 at 8:51 am)Court Jester Wrote: Why wasn't he charged for that then?

What are you talking about? He was held in criminal contempt for violating the court orders that he was slapped with, I think in 2013. Meaning that courts had already ruled that the immigration practices that he was using where unjust, so he was slapped with court orders from a judge to end these practices and he disobeyed , so he was arrested.

If he was breaking the law with what he was previously doing, he would have been charged for it. If not before being told to stop, then definitely after not listening to the courts the second time around. The only thing they could get him on was contempt of court.
All he did was do his job after a judge told him not to do that job that the law clearly supported.

What if you were in the same position and found in contempt of court for doing what the law said you could/should do? No charges of breaking a law. That was looked for and not found. Just told to stop when the law clearly stated that you didn't have to.

(August 26, 2017 at 9:28 am)Court Jester Wrote: If he was breaking the law with what he was previously doing, he would have been charged for it. If not before being told to stop, then definitely after not listening to the courts the second time around. The only thing they could get him on was contempt of court.
All he did was do his job after a judge told him not to do that job that the law clearly supported.

What if you were in the same position and found in contempt of court for doing what the law said you could/should do? No charges of breaking a law. That was looked for and not found. Just told to stop when the law clearly stated that you didn't have to.

He wasn't doing what the law said!!!!! That's why a court order was issued in the first place!!!!!!!!!!!! He was racially profiling, that is not his job, and when he was ordered by a court of law to stop those practices, he did not, and was arrested.

(August 26, 2017 at 8:48 am)Court Jester Wrote: Contempt of court because a judge told him to stop enforcing a written law. Not that he was enforcing in improperly, or he should have enforced it differently, or a hold on the enforcement of the law because it was in the process of being changed. Those would have added different charges.
And I'm sure that there's no coincidence that the state department announced the contempt charge on the eve of early voting.

No, contempt of court because he was orderd to stop doing somethng unconstitutional, and decided to keep doing it. No judge, ever, anywhere, told him to stop enforcing a written law. They told him, explicitly, to -adhere- to a written law, the highest written law of the united states.......

A cop can pull you over for "improperly changing lanes" - and through parallel construction...say that he "smelled burnt marijuana" then search you and your vehicle.....failing to find marijuana or contraband he can "find" money in your wallet...and seize it, on suspicion of being drug money.  In the process thereof he could then seek to ascertain your immigration status.

What a cop can't do...is stop and frisk you because you are brown.  End of.  Even ICE knows this, that's why they setup dragnets and card white people...CJ.........

How did you get this so completely wrong, where do you get your info? Your boy just pardoned a fucking racist who abused the immense power of the state in a manner wholly in contradiction with -your- constitutional rights and beyond the authority of his office......and you're looking for ways to spin this as a good thing or some leftist conspiracy before an election.....to what end?

(August 26, 2017 at 9:41 am)Mr.wizard Wrote:

(August 26, 2017 at 9:28 am)Court Jester Wrote: If he was breaking the law with what he was previously doing, he would have been charged for it. If not before being told to stop, then definitely after not listening to the courts the second time around. The only thing they could get him on was contempt of court.
All he did was do his job after a judge told him not to do that job that the law clearly supported.

What if you were in the same position and found in contempt of court for doing what the law said you could/should do? No charges of breaking a law. That was looked for and not found. Just told to stop when the law clearly stated that you didn't have to.

He wasn't doing what the law said!!!!! That's why a court order was issued in the first place!!!!!!!!!!!! He was racially profiling, that is not his job, and when he was ordered by a court of law to stop those practices, he did not, and was arrested.

Why wasn't he charged for violating people's civil liberties then? Because they had nothing on him. That's why.
It was an injunction based on feeling. No one could pin civil liberty violations on him, so he was just told to stop.
I'm glad he was pardoned and I'm glad that Trump had the balls to do it before the last day of his presidency like all the past presidents have done.

What he was doing -was- deemed to be a violation of civil liberties.......holy christ.  The point of the federal order was to tell him to stop doing that.  That was the federal order he was held in contempt of, that he was convicted for disregarding despite many, many chances to comply.