Ashcroft Fighting With Judges over Sentencing

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

From cnn.com

 

Ashcroft angers judges over sentencing

Tuesday, September 30, 2003 Posted: 10:18 AM EDT (1418 GMT)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A debate over appropriate punishments for federal crimes and how cases should be pursued by prosecutors has made unlikely foes of conservative judges and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

 

When similar cases are handled differently a drug peddler in San Diego might get 12 months in jail while one in Texas is sent away for six years. Ashcroft says he wants more uniformity, but judges say his ideas for achieving that will harm a system already struggling with more cases than it can handle.

 

It's turning into a particularly contentious chapter in the long-running dispute over sentencing.

 

Last week, federal judges urged repeal of a law that was sought by Ashcroft earlier this year making it more difficult for them to impose lighter sentences than specified in guidelines approved by Congress more than 15 years ago.

 

The Judicial Conference of the United States, headed by conservative Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, voted unanimously to support overturning the law, which also requires reports to

 

Congress on any judge who departs from the sentencing guidelines. Rehnquist had complained about the law when it was passed.

 

In another development last week, Ashcroft limited the freedom of prosecutors to strike plea bargains in criminal cases. He said that U.S. attorneys must seek the toughest punishment possible in nearly all cases, using plea bargains only in special situations.

 

Now, fewer than 5 percent of federal cases go to trial.

 

"If there were no guilty pleas, the courts could work 365 days a year, 24 hours a day and not try all the cases," said senior U.S. District Judge Neal Biggers Jr. of Oxford, Mississippi, named to the bench in 1984 by President Reagan.

 

Faithful, fair enforcement

As for departing from the guidelines, judges are not giving out light sentences willy-nilly, Biggers said. It's prosecutors who request lighter sentences in plea bargains to reward cooperative defendants, he added.

 

Michael O'Neill, a member of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, applauds Ashcroft's goal but said judges have legitimate concerns about interference with their authority.

 

"You're seeing some push back by the judges, as they perceive things to be unfair," said O'Neill, whose commission periodically revises the guidelines.

 

A Justice Department spokeswoman said Monday the department does not generally respond to judges' comments.

 

In July, Ashcroft wrote in a memo that the Justice Department "has a solemn obligation to ensure that laws concerning criminal sentencing are faithfully, fairly and consistently enforced."

 

Mandatory minimums

The guidelines set out a range of possible prison terms, usually leading to sentences much shorter than the maximum a defendant could have received. In addition, for some crimes Congress has established minimum prison sentences, known as mandatory minimums.

 

For example, someone who uses a gun in their crime or is caught with a certain amount of a drug faces a minimum amount of time in prison.

 

Mandatory minimum sentences have especially angered some judges.

 

Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a moderate conservative named to the bench by Reagan, told lawyers in August that mandatory minimum sentences should be abolished and the guidelines should be revised downward.

 

"Our resources are misspent, our punishments too severe, our sentences too long," Kennedy said.

 

Kennedy's comments to the American Bar Association have spurred the nation's largest lawyers group to start its own strategy for changes. A commission will be formed in Kennedy's name and hopes to have recommendations by next summer.

 

Stephen Saltzburg, a criminal law professor at George Washington University who will head the group, said presidential candidates and Washington leaders are not embracing Kennedy's views.

 

"Law and order, tough on crime, tough on sentencing is still the popular way to go," he said. "It doesn't make it right."

 

Congress and crime

Other judges are speaking out.

 

Justice Stephen Breyer recently echoed the criticism of mandatory minimum sentences. "There has to be room for the unusual or the exceptional case," Breyer said in a speech.

 

Earlier this year, a federal judge in New York quit over the latest clash between the judicial branch and Washington, citing in part the new law that limited judges' discretion in sentencing.

 

"Congress is mandating things simply because they want to show how tough they are on crime with no sense of whether this makes sense or is meaningful," U.S. District Judge John S. Martin, a former federal prosecutor, said after announcing his resignation in June.

 

In Wichita, Kansas, criminal defense attorney Dan Monnat said judges may have some influence in persuading Congress to revise the guidelines. Judges have lifetime appointments, so they can be independent.

 

"The federal judges don't have to worry about looking soft on crime, but the politicians do," Monnat said.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Copyright 2003 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

 

Where's that quote of Marney's again?

[Guest MikeSC]

But...but...but...

 

I thought the Supreme Court was just this overly conservative body, beholden to Republicans.

 

I mean, the left said that after Bush v Gore all of the time.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

EL OH EL

 

Because we all know that John Ashcroft is such a moderate that anything to the left of him is LEFTY LIBERAL GARBAGE.

[Guest MikeSC]

EL OH EL

 

Because we all know that John Ashcroft is such a moderate that anything to the left of him is LEFTY LIBERAL GARBAGE.

Hmm, you often create straw men to attack?

 

Wait -- you do.

 

Silly me.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

And you don't?

[Guest MikeSC]

And you don't?

I invent things you've never come close to saying out of thin air?

 

I mean, YOU do that. A lot.

 

I mean, I've never said a nice word about Ashcroft. He's hardly my fave. But, apparently, he's a moderate in my eyes.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Nope, never once did I say that. However, you insinuated in your little screed that the justices aren't as "right wing" as liberals try to say they are. However, this example is extremely flawed because John Ashcroft is, by no means, a political moderate. The justices still can maintain their conservatism by voting against the holy warrior.

 

And in reality, Breyer is a liberal and Kennedy is closer to the middle anyway (although Kennedy leans a bit right). Rehnquist is the only one of those "speaking out" who is arguably a hard-line conservative, even though all 9 of them voted against this.

 

But hey, if you're willing to argue that Scalia isn't a hard-line conservative, I'd be perfectly willing to debate that with you.

 

After all, your first post did insinuate the court isn't righty at all.

[Vyce 0]

And you don't?

The wit on this comeback was so sharp I cut myself on it.

 

Look, see? Blood. Right there.

 

I shall need a bandage.

[Guest MikeSC]

Nope, never once did I say that. However, you insinuated in your little screed that the justices aren't as "right wing" as liberals try to say they are. However, this example is extremely flawed because John Ashcroft is, by no means, a political moderate. The justices still can maintain their conservatism by voting against the holy warrior.

 

And in reality, Breyer is a liberal and Kennedy is closer to the middle anyway (although Kennedy leans a bit right). Rehnquist is the only one of those "speaking out" who is arguably a hard-line conservative, even though all 9 of them voted against this.

 

But hey, if you're willing to argue that Scalia isn't a hard-line conservative, I'd be perfectly willing to debate that with you.

 

After all, your first post did insinuate the court isn't righty at all.

Nope, never once did I say that. However, you insinuated in your little screed that the justices aren't as "right wing" as liberals try to say they are.

 

I'm not insinuating that.

 

I'm FLAT-OUT SAYING it.

 

The Supreme Court was smeared in 2000, unfairly, by a liberal press that seemed to have no problem with the Florida Court INVENTING law that affected the ONLY NATIONAL ELECTION we have --- but had a problem with the Supreme Court telling them that their legal justification for their decision was weak.

 

However, this example is extremely flawed because John Ashcroft is, by no means, a political moderate.

 

I don't remember ever saying that he was.

 

The justices still can maintain their conservatism by voting against the holy warrior.

 

Or maybe --- just MAYBE --- the Court is as impartial as is humanly possible and they rule as impartially as possible.

 

Nah, can't be that.

 

And in reality, Breyer is a liberal and Kennedy is closer to the middle anyway (although Kennedy leans a bit right). Rehnquist is the only one of those "speaking out" who is arguably a hard-line conservative, even though all 9 of them voted against this.

 

So, they are still far-right "criminals" (as some law professors said), but they will go against the occasional right-wing "kook"?

 

Why?

 

To keep up a guise or something?

 

But hey, if you're willing to argue that Scalia isn't a hard-line conservative, I'd be perfectly willing to debate that with you.

 

He's conservative, but you can't claim that his decisions are biased.

 

After all, your first post did insinuate the court isn't righty at all.

 

They're less right than the Warren Court was left.

 

How 'bout that?

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

The Supreme Court was smeared in 2000, unfairly, by a liberal press that seemed to have no problem with the Florida Court INVENTING law that affected the ONLY NATIONAL ELECTION we have --- but had a problem with the Supreme Court telling them that their legal justification for their decision was weak.

 

Mike, have you ever even read the Bush v. Gore decision?

 

If you did, you'd realize that the per curiam had NOTHING to do with "inventing law". It had everything to do with "the inability to count the votes within the time prescribed." I won't even judge the merits of that particular tenet, because it's not really the point of this post to begin with. In reality, the per curiam was nothing but a fucking cop out. As was stated in the dissent by Justice Breyer...

 

...[T]here is no justification for the majority's remedy, which is simply to reverse the lower court and halt the recount entirely. An appropriate remedy would be, instead, to remand this case with instructions that, even at this late date, would permit the Florida Supreme Court to require recounting all undercounted votes in Florida...and to do so in accordance with a single-uniform substandard. The majority justifies stopping the recount entirely on the ground that there is no more time...But the majority reaches this conclusion in the absence of any record evidence that the recount could not have been completed in the time allowed by the Florida Supreme Court. The majority finds facts outside of the record on matters that state courts are in a far better position to address. Of course, it is too late for any such recount to take place by December 12, the date by which the election disputes must be decided if a State is to take advantage of the safe harbor provisions of 3 U.S.C. § 5. Whether there is time to conduct a recount prior to December 18, when the electors are scheduled to meet, is a matter for the state courts to determine. And whether, under Florida law, Florida could or could not take further action is obviously a matter for Florida courts, not this Court, to decide.

 

Anyway, I don't really care to respond to your idiocy any further than that.

[Guest Cerebus]

I don't know about the ABA...the same week they refused to make a stance on American troops being "tried" by our European allies, they passed a resolution on outrage about the prisoners in X-Ray. I guess for the ABA, the importance of the legal status of our soldiers and sailors are well below the legal status of terrorists captured abroad.

[Guest MikeSC]

The Supreme Court was smeared in 2000, unfairly, by a liberal press that seemed to have no problem with the Florida Court INVENTING law that affected the ONLY NATIONAL ELECTION we have --- but had a problem with the Supreme Court telling them that their legal justification for their decision was weak.

 

Mike, have you ever even read the Bush v. Gore decision?

 

If you did, you'd realize that the per curiam had NOTHING to do with "inventing law". It had everything to do with "the inability to count the votes within the time prescribed." I won't even judge the merits of that particular tenet, because it's not really the point of this post to begin with. In reality, the per curiam was nothing but a fucking cop out. As was stated in the dissent by Justice Breyer...

 

...[T]here is no justification for the majority's remedy, which is simply to reverse the lower court and halt the recount entirely. An appropriate remedy would be, instead, to remand this case with instructions that, even at this late date, would permit the Florida Supreme Court to require recounting all undercounted votes in Florida...and to do so in accordance with a single-uniform substandard. The majority justifies stopping the recount entirely on the ground that there is no more time...But the majority reaches this conclusion in the absence of any record evidence that the recount could not have been completed in the time allowed by the Florida Supreme Court. The majority finds facts outside of the record on matters that state courts are in a far better position to address. Of course, it is too late for any such recount to take place by December 12, the date by which the election disputes must be decided if a State is to take advantage of the safe harbor provisions of 3 U.S.C. § 5. Whether there is time to conduct a recount prior to December 18, when the electors are scheduled to meet, is a matter for the state courts to determine. And whether, under Florida law, Florida could or could not take further action is obviously a matter for Florida courts, not this Court, to decide.

 

Anyway, I don't really care to respond to your idiocy any further than that.

Actually, I HAVE read it. Wiliam Kristol and Dionne co-edited a very good book about the whole controversy.

 

The Florida Court was overturning state law, repeatedly, in their decisions. The Supremes, unanimously, told them to seriously reconsider their decision when they initially vacated it --- so it's not like this right-wing cabal was behind it. And there was NO uniform standard in place, so any standards set would be useless. And this would have left Bush with no time for a protest of his own.

 

The Florida Court overstepped their bounds. Harris had every right in the world to go with the deadline set in the statutes. There was no legal justification for a manual recount as there was no evidence of mechanical failures.

 

You've been an idiot about this before. You're an idiot about it now.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Actually, I HAVE read it. Wiliam Kristol and Dionne co-edited a very good book about the whole controversy.

 

...oh. In that case, hell, I understand how damned misguided you actually can be.

 

 

And there was NO uniform standard in place, so any standards set would be useless.

 

The state law was "INTENT OF THE VOTER", so setting up a standard that determined the "INTENT OF THE VOTER" would be FAR from useless, unless you subscribe to the theory that "THE VOTER CAN'T BE TRUSTED", in which case we should just uh, switch to a dictatorship or something.

 

And this would have left Bush with no time for a protest of his own.

 

Why would Bush even need to protest if a uniform standard was present? Count the fucking votes, get it over with. Etc.

 

The Florida Court overstepped their bounds. Harris had every right in the world to go with the deadline set in the statutes. There was no legal justification for a manual recount as there was no evidence of mechanical failures.

 

Nice bipartisanship.

[Guest deadbeater]

Anyway to put it, the Democrats screwed themselves in Florida by not fighting hard enough for the voters thet were illegally barred from voting, and for allowing that byzatine punch card ballot at the local level.

[Guest MikeSC]

Anyway to put it, the Democrats screwed themselves in Florida by not fighting hard enough for the voters thet were illegally barred from voting, and for allowing that byzatine punch card ballot at the local level.

Can you provide an iota of proof that ANYBODY was illegally barred from voting? I mean, the Democrats (and Jesse Jackson) couldn't pull it off, so I doubt you really have much, but I'll always give you a chance.

 

And, honestly, LOOK at the friggin' ballot in question. It wasn't exactly the SAT there. If you couldn't figure out how to vote properly (especially the "politically active" elderly citizens), maybe you SHOULDN'T be voting in the first place.

-=Mike