Thursday, December 10, 2009

Sheriff Joe and the Second Amendment

Scott Greenfield has had enough.
It's grown tedious hearing about, and writing about, the doings of Crazy Joe in Maricopa. No doubt he has a few more bullets in his gun that will soon whistle through the air. If there's no one, from the Governor to the United States Attorney to the indicted Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to the judges to the lawyers to the citizens, with the guts to take him on, then why waste more time or bandwidth on Joe Arpaio?

We can either officially declare Sheriff Joe Arpaio the King of Maricopa, or his subjects can rise up against him, take a chance, maybe even take a bullet, and put an end to his reign. If the locals are unwilling to stand up, to take a risk (as if it was a risk, since they are getting hammered anyway), and do something for themselves, then injustice, corruption and impropriety in Maricopa will be just too banal for further discussion.
Brian Tannenbaum, on the other hand, just got started.
This, is a disgrace, playing out daily, and evidencing who is really in charge over there.


I'm glad this is all happening. Really, I am.

Because this issue of who really runs our judicial system, everywhere in America, is rarely discussed.
There's a string of short paragraphs that pretty much sets it up and tells you where it's going. It's going here:
It's time for the feds to swarm in here. This is getting out of hand.

No, it's gotten out of hand.
And Matt Brown cuts to the chase, exercising admirable restraint by not using an exclamation point.
Holy crap.
What's got everyone newly worked up is the set of criminal charges just filed against Judge Lock-'em-up Donahoe by County Attorney Andrew Thomas (accompanied at the press conference announcing this by his puppeteer Sheriff Joe). The press conference proved, um, troubling for Maricopa's masters since they had, essentially, nothing of substance to say. As New Times reports, although Donahoe was charged with bribery, obstructing a criminal investigation, and hindering prosecution, neither Thomas nor Arpaio could offer any evidence that he'd actually taken a bribe or received anything of financial value. He is, apparently, corrupt for the sake of being corrupt. Or something. Thomas told the assembled press
If I'm not explaining this well, I hope you'll help me.
Sure. And Sheriff Joe, channeling John Wayne, offered the enigmatic tautology of the day.
Sometimes, you have to do what you have to do.
I suppose. All this came down a couple of hours before a hearing in which Donahoe was to decide whether Thomas had illegally hired special prosecutors from D.C. Donahoe, one of the defendants in a civil RICO action filed by Thomas and Arpaio, had declined to recuse himself from yesterday's scheduled hearing. The criminal charges changed that. In related matters:
  • Nick Martin at Heat City reports that the Court of Appeals this morning ordered Stoddard freed until at least January 5 at which time it will hear the case. As of 3:58 Eastern Time, the docket doesn't reflect the freeing, though it does recount the January 5 date.
  • John Kindley at People v. State has the news that Arpaio skipped a planned appearance at a political fundraiser in Elkhart, Indiana. He blamed his inability to attend on an "extraordinary event" in Maricopa. He did, however, send along some "pink boxer underwear" which he'll "personalize" for those who pony up some dough.
All this, all of it, weeks of it, leads Craig Mehrens, who's representing Joanne Cuccia, apparently pro bono (good for him), and who made the original request for Stoddard to be held in contempt, to tell the first truth to come from of any of the participants in any of these shenanigans.
They’re making a circus, they’re making a mockery out of this whole judicial system.
No shit.

In a comment on today's Simple Justice post, Jameson Johnson asks (I assume facetiously), whether Scott is "proposing an armed insurrection." Scott hasn't replied to that comment.

I've argued before that this, the means of insurrection, the right of the people to protect themselves against the government, not the need for protection from grizzly bears or burglars, is precisely the purpose behind the Second Amendment. Let me be clear. I'm not suggesting armed insurrection. Don't do it.

I'm just observing that Jefferson and Adams would have thought it an appropriate, perhaps even a necessary response to Sheriff Joe.

After all, A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do.


  1. Sheriff Joe has a lot of support. We Second Amendment Kansans support him all the way.

  2. i have to agree with you on the second amendment. Most people don't realize the ONLY reason it's in the constitution is that the people who had just ran the govt they hated into the ocean withe the guns they ALREADY had put it in there to basically tell the NEW govt to keep THEIR HANDS OFF THEIR GUNS.

  3. I am unsurprised that a white septuagenarian from fly-over country is enraptured with Sheriff Mussalini. I too am a huge Second Amendment supporter. It just has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand. The Second is only one Amendment. The others, namely First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth are pretty cool too. Give them a read, and see if your world view doesn't open up some.

    Oh, and it is time to scrape of the "W 04" sticker off the back of your F250. I'm sure "Palin/Dobbs 2012" is just around the corner.

  4. 'What is means' should learn how to read. All I said was 'I support Sherif Joe, which is what you should do, being from Arizona. I just returned home from vacation and read your biased comment. You show yourself to be a flaming liberal, and a supporter of illegal immigration.

    The comment about the Second Amendment was made by an 'anonymous' poster, not by me.

    But then it is understood that you are biased against 'fly-over' country (which I did over Arizona Monday) and senior citizens.