Sheriff Joe Arpaio getting the (much deserved)Federal Shaft.

[Comrade Tortoise]

YAHHHOOOOO! Bring on the Justice Lube!

Reuters) - The Obama administration on Tuesday said it was preparing to sue Arizona county sheriff Joe Arpaio and his department for violating civil rights laws by improperly targeting Latinos in a bid to crack down on illegal immigrants.

The sheriff's high-profile crackdown on illegal immigrants has helped thrust the issue onto the national political stage with some states passing tough new laws aimed at pushing out those in the country illegally.

The administration's Justice Department and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office have been in settlement talks for months over allegations that officers regularly made unlawful stops and arrests of Latinos, used excessive force against them and failed to adequately protect the Hispanic community.

Those negotiations have broken down because of a fight over the Justice Department's demand that an independent monitor be appointed by a federal court to oversee compliance with the settlement, which has now reached 128 pages in draft form, according to the Obama administration.

"We believe that you are wasting time and not negotiating in good faith," Roy Austin, deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department's civil rights division, said in a letter to the lawyer for Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO).

Austin said in the letter that Arpaio's team demanded that a meeting slated for Wednesday include for the first time negotiations over the monitor and previously had demanded that the Justice Department provide more details about its findings.

"MCSO's refusal to engage in good faith negotiations requires us to prepare for civil (court) action," Austin said. He added that the Justice Department has recently discovered more information about the "failure to reasonably investigate sex crimes" by Arpaio's office.

The Justice Department in a December report outlined numerous alleged civil rights violations, including that Latino drivers were four to nine times more likely to be stopped than non-Latinos by Arpaio's force.

The sheriff has steadfastly denied any wrongdoing and lashed out at the Obama administration for targeting his department and failing to deal with the problem of illegal immigration with some 11.5 million believed to be in the United States.

In a strongly worded statement on Tuesday, Arpaio said the appointment of a monitor would force him to abdicate responsibility for his police force, including decisions about policies, operations, jail programs and enforcement.

"To the Obama administration, who is attempting to strong arm me into submission only for its political gain, I say: This will not happen, not on my watch!" Arpaio said in the statement.

Arpaio's force has been under investigation by federal authorities since 2008 during the Bush administration. Obama's Justice Department spent months fighting for access to documents and to some of his deputies. Arpaio was interviewed twice during the probe.

Racist tyrannical human-rights violating little torture-monger is finally getting what is coming to him. Hopefully, the court costs will lose him re-election.

[Josh]

About fucking time.

This has been in the works for a while, the usual Fed dance to get all their ducks lined up and preserve their mile-high conviction rate.

Safe to say, fucker is probably toast.

[SirNitram]

The Feds were ready to settle. However, an unnegotiable part was having a court-appointed monitor present to review all of Arpaio's actions. The Duke of Assholishness refused to allow such an invasion of his sovieregn right to be a dick to everyone else and waste taxpayer money. Now there's gonna be a trial.

[Josh]

The Feds were ready to settle. However, an unnegotiable part was having a court-appointed monitor present to review all of Arpaio's actions. The Duke of Assholishness refused to allow such an invasion of his sovieregn right to be a dick to everyone else and waste taxpayer money. Now there's gonna be a trial.

On the plus side he's going to flame out in a big way now. On the down side, he got to run his crooked little fiefdom that much longer.

Either way, he'll be done soon.

[Steve]

*puts on contrarian hat*

And you're sure he won't win re-election on the strength of voters who have no problem with how he treats "criminals" and who will instead direct their wrath over court costs to the meddling liberals in Washington who don't understand what it takes to keep the peace in areas overrun by criminals (that is, illegal immigrants, who by their presence break the law).

[Josh]

They can re-elect him all the want if he's in the clink.

[Steve]

So they'll elect his hand-picked predecessor. And then support Arpaio during his (likely) appeals. And then try to defiantly re-elect him when he gets out of prison.

[General Havoc]

So they'll elect his hand-picked predecessor. And then support Arpaio during his (likely) appeals. And then try to defiantly re-elect him when he gets out of prison.

And? The same damn thing went on during the Civil Rights movement. It takes time to uproot strongly-held popular prejudices like that. Shoving this asshole in prison is a nice start.

[Steve]

Just disagreeing with the attitude that getting rid of him will magically make Maricopa County a land of milk and honey.

[General Havoc]

Just disagreeing with the attitude that getting rid of him will magically make Maricopa County a land of milk and honey.

An attitude that nobody here has been suggesting. But getting rid of this douchebag will certainly help.

[Josh]

When getting rid of villains that you know will be replaced by villains, you just kind of hope that the next one will be less powerful and influential.

Having his predecessor spend his waning years in the Federal clink is likely to at least inspire the next guy to be less blatant about the scumbaggery for a while.

[Josh]

See Havoc? Optimism!

[Steve]

But how else can I make liberals cry so I can feed upon their tears of despair?!

....wait, did I say that? Oh, just a slip of the tongue, I assure you...

[rhoenix]

Tears from Conservatives have much more salt in them. Much better for fusion power. ;)

[General Havoc]

Tears from Conservatives have much more salt in them. Much better for fusion power. ;)

We also have more calcium.

See Havoc? Optimism!

I know... it's like... weird man. I feel dirty.

[rhoenix]

That's the funniest part to me. Granted, I may not have the best of samples from which to draw, but I'll at least show this: I would consider myself closer to liberal than conservative in terms of political views, overall.

Havoc would likely consider himself closer to conservative than liberal. And yet, whenever he and I discuss issues, as long as we're pulling from the same datasets, we don't tend to disagree on much. When Havoc and I have disagreed, and it turned into a debate, either the differences of our two positions were only separated by a small amount, or one of us didn't see another part of the issue that factored in, and we ended up agreeing.

The issues he and I, for example, tend to butt heads on, we've both agreed most of the time that there are no easy answers to.

[Josh]

I know... it's like... weird man. I feel dirty.

That's because you're soiled by the endless muck of the political system you still choose to engage in, which will never get better because

There, now we both feel better.

[Josh]

That's the funniest part to me. Granted, I may not have the best of samples from which to draw, but I'll at least show this: I would consider myself closer to liberal than conservative in terms of political views, overall.

Havoc would likely consider himself closer to conservative than liberal. And yet, whenever he and I discuss issues, as long as we're pulling from the same datasets, we don't tend to disagree on much. When Havoc and I have disagreed, and it turned into a debate, either the differences of our two positions were only separated by a small amount, or one of us didn't see another part of the issue that factored in, and we ended up agreeing.

The issues he and I, for example, tend to butt heads on, we've both agreed most of the time that there are no easy answers to.

Whoops, missed this in my sarcastic funhaving.

One of the things here is that the very definitions of conservative/liberal are heavily influenced by the current debate. For example, Obama's health care plan was largely a reprise of a nineties-era Republican plan. Good alternative then, godless communism marching us toward the gulag today. By the same token, the Anti-Terrorist Act of the mid-nineties was a sensible response to terrorism when proposed by Dems, but the end of civil liberties for all America when it was repackaged as PATRIOT post 9/11.

I was once a sort of quasi-conservative, inasmuch as I did and still do despise the fucking Clintons and tended toward hawkish foreign policy/economic conservatism, but I never was a social conservative as such on stuff like abortion and so on. Really, the strongest identifying issue for me was the gun issue, because the anti-gun lobby was so blatantly full of bullshit on every issue they chose to trumpet. However, when the post-94 Republican majority started going all moral majority and trying to save us from internet porn, I went my Chuck You Farley route and went on to the small-l libertarian niche that I still sit in today.

Conservative? Liberal? Beats me. I think that governmental contingency health care should be available for all citizens, for the best interests of society. However, having witnessed how the government can fuck up the simplest of tasks let alone the colossally complicated, I don't expect in the slightest for any such system to be efficient, fairly applied, or anything other than better than the alternative of letting conditions rot until they become critical enough to merit minimal emergency care. Basically, I think government really only serves when it's the only reasonable option, but not as a first option.

As for the political system in general, I see what I've said for years- the parties are businesses that have votes as the product, and no substantive meaning past that. They can be relied on to follow the interests of their donors to a large extent, their substantial pressure blocs to a large extent, and short-term public upset to a much lesser extent. They barely exist in the conservative/liberal dynamic, but rather thrive as favor-exchange mechanisms for those who've got enough filthy lucre in hand or in aggregate to make the parties notice their existence.

[Josh]

Also just because it can't be said enough, fuck Arpaio. He's the kind of asshole who probably would've been gleefully carrying out the pogroms in Tsarist Russia.

[rhoenix]

Basically, I think government really only serves when it's the only reasonable option, but not as a first option.

This. Right here.

I do identify myself as a liberal on more issues than I do as a conservative. However, I don't think the government should have first crack at any given option.

That which cannot be done more efficiently for the public good by private companies, should be a government function, in most cases.

However, I also don't think it should ever be the only option - one good example would be the US mail service, which is government run, versus UPS, DHL, and FedEx. The balance of public and private keeps that in check. This might not be the best example of what I mean, but is the best one I can think of offhand.

[Cynical Cat]

I do identify myself as a liberal on more issues than I do as a conservative. However, I don't think the government should have first crack at any given option.

That's not at all true. No one here thinks that privatizing the entire military is a good first option. Monopolistic industries like power and health care are places where government often does better and its definitely in the public interest for the government to either run the industry or have a hand in how they're run. On the other hand, no one's attracted to the idea of government run neighborhood bakeries. Not every situation is equal.

[rhoenix]

That's not at all true. No one here thinks that privatizing the entire military is a good first option. Monopolistic industries like power and health care are places where government often does better and its definitely in the public interest for the government to either run the industry or have a hand in how they're run. On the other hand, no one's attracted to the idea of government run neighborhood bakeries. Not every situation is equal.

That's a fair clarification - I wasn't even thinking of a nation's military at the time.

And dude, the idea of government-run bakeries is a little scary. I get your point, but the phrase "You will eat your cupcake AND YOU WILL LIKE IT" immediately comes to my mind. And then I laugh.

[frigidmagi]

We do have government run booze shops in Utah and Norway. By the way, the prices and restricted selection are enough to qualify as a Marine Horror Story.

"And they only had one kind of Whiskey!"

[Cynical Cat]

We do have government run booze shops in Utah and Norway. By the way, the prices and restricted selection are enough to qualify as a Marine Horror Story.

"And they only had one kind of Whiskey!"

We have them in BC (we have some spectacularly screwy liquor laws which are a legacy of post prohibition patch and paste law making). They aren't bad, but we also have private ones that generate competition so they can't get too screwy. My province's liquor laws should all be burned and rewritten from scratch.

[frigidmagi]

Being serious for a moment.

Both Corporations and Government are large groups of wealthy, powerful men and women who always keep their own interests in mind. That always must be remembered.

Corporations exist to make a profit above everything else, if they don't they will be replaced by one who does.

Governments exist to stay in power, if they don't they will be replaced by one who does. I don't like that as I think Governments should exist to protect their citizens, but reality is what it is.

In the Democratic Republics we all live in (excluding in theory England which is either a Constitutional Monarchy pretending to be a Democratic Republics, or the other way around, I can never decide) we force Governments to do things like protecting us from outside and internal predators, or we throw them out. In our somewhat free market, we force the Corporations to provide somewhat quality services and goods or they do not profit. Or so the story goes.

That breaks down somewhat in practice. However I haven't figured out any good alternatives.