How fucking stoopid.

Once again, a small group of fuckers in dresses has decided that a law passed by congress and signed by the president to limit the scope of judges is just a 'suggestion'. So, I guess we now live in a country of judges, not a country of laws.

If the Supremes were all gunned down, I wouldn't be to unhappy about it. That said, I agree that the sentencing difference between powder and rock are wrong... but that is a case of a law that needs to be fixed.

So much for the concepts like rule of law.

I do see a separation if if congress could tell judges how much time they have to a convicted criminal
IMO mandatory sentencing guidelines do more harm than good

I do see separation issues if congress could tell judges how much time they have to give a convicted criminal
IMO mandatory sentencing guidelines do more harm than good

This isn't a case of "is the law good". It is a case of "do we obey the laws or only the laws we like".

Judges were giving sentences to drug dealers that basically was pay a small fine and go back and deal on the street the same afternoon. Congress passed laws to enforce what they (and some blue-ribbon panel) thought was reasonable sentences. The president signed it, and it became law.

Now, if the people think the law was wrong, we have a right to pettition congress to amend the law. But Judges are supposed to enforce the laws... even the ones they don't like.

Giving judges the power to say a law is 'only a suggestion' means that they, at their discrecion, can allow or prevent anything. Judge doesn't like white guys, I could get 100 years for speeding. Judge likes white guys, I could get 10 min for murder. Hey, those laws are just "guidelines" after all.

If something isn't done to redress this, we are no longer a country that is ruled by law.

Fuzzybear-
If the Supremes were all gunned down, I wouldn't be to unhappy about it. That said, I agree that the sentencing difference between powder and rock are wrong... but that is a case of a law that needs to be fixed.

So much for the concepts like rule of law.

Posted by FuzzyBear at 2007-12-10 08:18 PM | Reply

Do you even realize how fucked up you are?

Let's see... since you didn't give any arguments supporting the idea that judges, some of whom are appointed for life, now have given themselves an unlimited amount of power...

Let's start with some basics, and you can tell me where you disagree.

1)We, as a society, have developed a series of laws to govern how we interact.

2)These laws are written and voted on by a group of people who have to be elected by the people.

3)If the people we elect pass laws we don't like, we can work to get them removed from office.

4)In most states, if the majority of the people want a new law, there are ballot inititives that give citizens a direct voice in the legal process.

5)Judges are not lawmakers.

6)Judges are not GOD.

7)The job of a judge is to determine guilt or lack of guilt on a particular charge (criminal cases) or degree of guilt (for such things as property cases).

8)If a judge exceeds his authority, he should be removed from office.

9)If the Supremes have just decided that the laws of this country do not apply to them, or to their fellow judges, they should be removed from office.

10)While I did not advocate "gunning" them down, I was saying that I would feel no more sympathy to them (as lawbreakers) than I would to, say, the guys that were killed in Texas while robbing Mr. Horn's neighbor. In both cases, I would not shed a tear for someone who was killed while violating the laws of our country.

11)After thinking about it, these people are violating the laws under the color of authority. I would have even less sympathy for them than I do for the burglers. They could at least plead hunger or lack of education.

12)Everyone is all screaming about BUSH or worried about Chavez -- and the guys in dresses are going to destroy this country much quicker.

Fuzzybear-
If the Supremes were all gunned down, I wouldn't be to unhappy about it....
So much for the concepts like rule of law.

Posted by FuzzyBear at 2007-12-10 08:18 PM |

You're a laugh riot, fuzzy

I've had political disagreements with many people, but the folks who mention how they would be OK with this or that federal/state official being "gunned down" really are fucked up.

There's really know way around how fucked up that is, and I don't care if it's someone talking about Bush or someone talking about the Supreme Court, or members of Congress, etc.

I would prefer if they followed the law.

Failing that, I would prefer them to be removed by congress.

Failing that, I would prefer them to all die of natural causes before they do any additional harm to our country.

But, however it happens, these people do not need to be running this country.

BUT... that said... I was a bit hot when I read that the courts decided they were above the law. I would much prefer a legal settlement to the judial power grab.

Betle,

You are right... I was just hot under the collar. I would be one of the people who would want to see someone punished if they did "gun down" a gov't official. Even the ones I don't agree with.

I just know that congress doesn't have the balls to remove the 7 members of the supreme court that have just decided that they are the final arbitors of all things. No gov't divided into 3 equal areas, no rule of law, no gov't by the people. All gone, with a single 7-2 vote.

Congress is restricted from enacting laws outside the scope placed for them in the constitution. I believe the supremes said that mandatory sentencing laws do not pass constitutional muster (only guidelines do).

Both cases, each decided by the same 7-to-2 alignment, chided federal appeals courts for failing to give district judges sufficient leeway. The appeals court had in each case overturned a sentence that was lower than that provided by the guidelines. The two dissenters were Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Thomas has a new buddy? What's Scalia going to do?

Guidelines. Get it? Not LAW. This shouldn't have gone to the Supreme Court. I'm seriously unimpressed with Alito. Thomas never has been impressive.

Fuzzybear-
It's nice that, upon reflection, you wouldn't welcome the "gunning down" of gov't officials, either appointees or those elected who appoint them.
I'm afraid that I can't really see your eventual reluctance to the propriety of "gunning down" of appointed justices a remedy for your grievances as a success for either the "rule of law" or as a hopeful sign that you are maybe even partially within the realm of sanity, but I suppopse that those who serve might be happy to find that at least you will not support their illegal execution.

So, kudos to you!

The problem was sentencing people with crack possession convictions to such lengthly terms. Many judges rightly felt them too severe and prefer a treatment/probation option which they couldn't give to first time offenders.

Everyone deserves a second chance at life. Putting someone in prison for years over possession of a rock of crack is ludicrous and makes them hardened criminals when they could have gotten clean and not taken up space in a prison where we needed a bed for someone convicted of a far more serious crime.

I have no problem with giving the federal judges more sentencing leeway. In many circumstances the maximum sentence is too harsh particularly for crimes like personal possession of a small amount of cocaine, etc.

Besides, this doesn't give the federal judges unlimited power in sentencing as one poster suggested in his below --

Let's see... since you didn't give any arguments supporting the idea that judges, some of whom are appointed for life, now have given themselves an unlimited amount of power...

That sbove statement is wrong.
Under this new ruling by the Supremes, federal judges can now lessen the amount of time under the current sentencing guidelines if the judge finds that a serving a sentence of less time would be more just in a particular case.

For those who are concerned that the federal judges might run amok and impose much harsher sentences than would be fair -- this ruling states that federal judges cannot make a sentence for a crime longer than the time originally set out under the sentencing guidelines imposed by Congress.
by the way -- it's called a sentencing "guideline" for a reason. It's purpose is to guide and advise a judge as to what might be an appropriate sentence for a particular crime. A "guideline" does not translate into "mandatory."

Correction --

the bold print should have stopped just before "by the way" at the beginning of the last paragraph.

From the article: The court's endorsement of judges' discretion raised the prospect that higher sentences, not only lower ones, would now be upheld on appeal.

Where I work, there are often things that I think are wrong (and some are stupid, many are illegal / unethical). I work to change the rules where I can, and live with the ones that I have to. If I were faced with one that I couldn't change and couldn't live with, I would quit. If I were a judge, and the law said I had to give someone a sentence that I didn't think was fair... I would either do my job and then start an active campaign to change the law, or I would quit. I wouldn't simply decide that I was going to ignore the law.

"The court has taken the handcuffs off and told judges that you are free to apply your mind,'" said Graham Boyd, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Drug Law Reform Project.

And the sound you hear? That's 1/2 million druggies all having an orgasm at the same time.

But Justice Stevens went on to say that the guidelines were just one factor in the "individualized assessment" that a judge must make in every case. The judge "may not presume that the guidelines range is reasonable," he said. So, a judge can start the trial with the belief that a manditory minimum (or, for that matter, the entire concept that selling drugs should be a crime?) is not reasonable?

A judge can give someone selling drugs to kids in a school a 5 min time out if he thinks drugs should be legal. And everyone is OK with this?

And the fact that a law (passed by congress and signed by the president) is a guideline, but not really a rule or nuttin... your ok with that, too?

^^^^
boy, never have i seen so much say so little....
back to freerepublic.com with you

me thinks a "druggie" must have pissed in fuzzybears cereal at some point.

there is a law on the books in oregon that it is illegal to not let your dishes drip dry... should we shoot all the law breakers? should we kill all the retailers who sells dishwashers ( i've seen them in stores myself, oh, the horror!)

But Judges are supposed to enforce the laws... even the ones they don't like.

Not true: the legislative branch enacts laws, the executive enforces them, and the judicial branch interprets them.

In this case, and I must admit I haven't read the decision yet, it appears the Court interpreted the constitution as to prohibit the legislative branch from telling the judicial branch how to do its job; however, the legislative branch can serve as an advisor to the judicial branch.

Allowing judges this type of discretion is simply going to lead to other problems i.e. people claiming lack of fairness in sentencing.

The problem that triggerred this decision was lack of fairness in the sentencing GUIDELINES; not lack of fairness in the sentencing. They should have changed the damn guidelines!

Our prisons are crammed full of non-violent drug offenders. It costs us taxpayers tens of billions of dollars. In decades to come, unless something changes, it will cost us hundreds of billions of dollars. Here in California we are bursting at the seams. And yet crime rates have not dropped.
There is a misconception among the general public that longer prison sentences and locking up ever greater numbers of people reduces crime. And that simply does not bare out when we look at the numbers and the trends. All that happens is we the taxpayer are stuck with ever higher bills.
As a 'rule of thumb' it is believed that every one dollar spent on prevention and rehabilitation saves ten dollars in incarceration costs. Frankly, that is where I would like to see our money invested. Giving judges more discretion to reduce sentences is at best a stop-gap measure.

The easiest solution to resolving the prison population is to sell the prisoners off as slaves. So long as they were convicted, sell them.

That's the easy solution to the illegal immigration issue, too.

Holy Jeebus, do any of you whacks know what "CHECKS AND BALANCES" are? Once upon a time, there was a law that said if you were BLACK you couldn't GO TO THE SAME SCHOOL AS A WHITE. Sometimes the Court is the first to get it, sometimes they are the last, but it's all part of the system. In this case, the court got it right. Interesting that Thomas didn't follow Scalia.....

And Petrous, there needs to be a market for your idea to work. It's been a down couple years for slaves.

JOMAMA - I knows lots of people that said they'd buy Halle in a heartbeat.

Of course, my post is about criminals, not actresses.

This isn't a case of "is the law good". It is a case of "do we obey the laws or only the laws we like".

Judges were giving sentences to drug dealers that basically was pay a small fine and go back and deal on the street the same afternoon. Congress passed laws to enforce what they (and some blue-ribbon panel) thought was reasonable sentences. The president signed it, and it became law.

Now, if the people think the law was wrong, we have a right to pettition congress to amend the law. But Judges are supposed to enforce the laws... even the ones they don't like.

Giving judges the power to say a law is 'only a suggestion' means that they, at their discrecion, can allow or prevent anything. Judge doesn't like white guys, I could get 100 years for speeding. Judge likes white guys, I could get 10 min for murder. Hey, those laws are just "guidelines" after all.

If something isn't done to redress this, we are no longer a country that is ruled by law.

Posted by FuzzyBear at 2007-12-10 08:40 PM | Reply |

You entirely skipped over one aspect of our law, and in the article. The fact that when new laws are made they cannot be at odds with the constitution. We do in fact have three branches of government, not only 2. The president and congress are in fact not the last word. You also ignore the law that allows anyone to challenge the laws.

In this case, the law was challenged as the law allows, and found the guidelines to have been unconstitutional, but ruled that congress was within its right to make suggestions. Thus some measure of the intent of congress was reserved, and now the whole thing is accepted and tested to be legal. This is exactly what the judicial branch is supposed to be doing.

Where I work, there are often things that I think are wrong (and some are stupid, many are illegal / unethical). I work to change the rules where I can, and live with the ones that I have to. If I were faced with one that I couldn't change and couldn't live with, I would quit.


Thats all well and good, but the question before us, is what do you do when you find 2 laws in contradiction with each other? Its not like all these judges went to the cigar room and said fuck that law were not doin it.


If I were a judge, and the law said I had to give someone a sentence that I didn't think was fair... I would either do my job and then start an active campaign to change the law, or I would quit. I wouldn't simply decide that I was going to ignore the law.


You wouldn't have to make that decision, because if the defendant thought the sentence was unfair, he'd have your ruling challenged on appeal.


So, a judge can start the trial with the belief that a manditory minimum (or, for that matter, the entire concept that selling drugs should be a crime?) is not reasonable?


In regards to the mandatory minimum, that seems to be the correct notion. With regards to selling drugs, no they can not.


A judge can give someone selling drugs to kids in a school a 5 min time out if he thinks drugs should be legal. And everyone is OK with this?


I guess a judge probably could, but I doubt the prosecutor would let that go. The prosecution could appeal the sentence just as much as the defense could. Furthermore that understates the fact that prosecutors typically are the ones asking for the sentence. A prosecutor could just as easily decide not to prosecute the case at all. And yes I'm ok with this, because this is how the law is supposed to work.


And the fact that a law (passed by congress and signed by the president) is a guideline, but not really a rule or nuttin... your ok with that, too?


Yes because this exactly what the founding fathers had in mind when they put forth the three equal branches of government. You would assume that the judiciary is below that of congress, this is not true. They serve different functions but are equal. And thus the judiciary can challenge any law they like. If congress doesn't like the decisions, they can change the offending laws, if the president doesn't like the judges, he can change them by appointment.