Lots in this article worth highlighting, but at least it now mainstreams what the DFHs have known for at least 3 years since Roberts and Alito took the bench.
In its first five years, the Roberts court issued conservative decisions 58 percent of the time. And in the term ending a year ago, the rate rose to 65 percent, the highest number in any year since at least 1953.
The courts led by Chief Justices Warren E. Burger, from 1969 to 1986, and William H. Rehnquist, from 1986 to 2005, issued conservative decisions at an almost indistinguishable rate - 55 percent of the time.
They're using databases compiled by political scientists who assign decisions to a conservative-liberal rating system according to criteria like whether the court sided with the prosecutor (conservative outcome) or an individual against a corporation (liberal outcome). I think the acceleration is significant too, as Roberts and Alito grow into the jobs and hit their full stride, confident in their impunity.
This really says it all:
Four of the six most conservative justices of the 44 who have sat on the court since 1937 are serving now: Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Antonin Scalia and, most conservative of all, Clarence Thomas. (The other two were Chief Justices Burger and Rehnquist.) Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the swing justice on the current court, is in the top 10.
When the "swing" vote at the "center" of the court is actually in the top 10 of consevative justices since they started measuring these things, I think I feel safe saying "Yes Virginia, the Supreme Court is packed with conservative extremists."
Elena Kagan's Supreme Court confirmation hearings kicked off on Monday. Her nomination has been met by glum resignation on the left and indifference on the right, as Adam Serwer notes in the American Prospect. Kagan is hoping to replace the Supreme Court's most prominent liberal, Justice John Paul Stevens, who stepped down earlier this week. Progressives are counting on Kagan to shore up the pro-choice faction on the court.
Kagan has never been a judge and she hasn't published very many academic law opinions. As a result, the confirmation process is leaning heavily on her counsels to President Bill Clinton as a White House adviser, her clerkship with legendary liberal Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, and her stint as Dean of Harvard Law School.
RH Reality Check has video of a key exchange in Kagan's confirmation hearing yesterday, in which Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) pressed Kagan on her views about life and health exemptions for the mother within abortion bans.
"Do you believe the constitution requires that the health of the mother be protected in any statute restricting access to abortion?" Feinstein asked Kagan.
"Senator Feinstein, I do think that the continuing holding of Roe and Doe v. Bolton is that women's life and women's health have to be protected in abortion regulation," Kagan replied.
That's a good start, but it's hardly the ringing endorsement of choice that progressives would have hoped. Kagan went on to talk the special case of "partial birth abortion bans," which she encouraged Bill Clinton to support while he was president. "Partial birth abortion" isn't even a medical term. It's a marketing term coined by anti-choicers in their bid to chip away at Roe v. Wade. For pro-choicers, it's disappointing to see Kagan uncritically buying into that frame.
Title X and the Gag Order
Jodi Jacobson discusses Kagan's record on choice issues in greater detail at RH Reality Check. She notes that the Center for Reproductive Rights reviewed Kagan's record and raised many questions about her views on abortion. On the bright side, CRR believes that Kagan would have struck down the Title X gag rule. Title X was established in 1970 to provide public funding for reproductive health care, including birth control.
In 1988, the Secretary of Health and Human Services imposed a so-called "gag rule" that prevented doctors from talking about abortion and required them to refer patients to services for the welfare of "the unborn." Kagan argued in a 1992 law review article that the gag order violated the First Amendment because the government was trying to silence one point of view while promoting another.
However, in a memo for Justice Thurgood Marshall, Kagan said it was "ludicrous" that a lower court found that the Eighth Amendment guarantees elective abortions for women in prison. Kagan disagreed with the lower court's finding that elective abortions are "serious medical needs."
Obamacare all over again
A Supreme Court confirmation hearing is like Shark Week on the Learning Channel. Chum's up!
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) criticized Kagan for rejecting the fringe legal theory of "tentherism," a position that opponents of health care reform have used to argue that Obamacare is unconstitutional. As Ian Millhiser observes in AlterNet, it's ironic that Sessions also criticized Kagan as an incipient "activist judge." Embracing "tentherism" would be nothing if not judicial activism. It's extremely unlikely that any tenther-based challenge would make it to the Supreme Court.
Outside the Senate chamber, anti-gay activist Peter LaBarbera is demanding to know whether Dean Kagan schemed to allow transgender people to use the bathroom of their choice, reports Stephanie Mencimer of Mother Jones.
Some Republican senators questioned Kagan about her decision to bar military recruiters from school-sponsored recruiting events at Yale Law School over Don't Ask Don't Tell. On the outside, a Yale grad and Republican activist named Flagg Youngblood has taken to the talkshow circuit to complain about how he had to attend ROTC drills at another school. It's not clear why any of this is Kagan's problem, seeing as she was Dean of Harvard and took a much weaker stance on military recruiting.
That's not cooling Youngblood's apocalyptic anti-Kagan rhetoric, though, Adam Weinstein reports in Mother Jones. "In the last 18 months, the president and his plotting comrades have dragged the United States to the edge of Constitutional oblivion. America's in the eleventh hour, and Elena Obama must be stopped from pushing us over the cliff," Youngblood recently proclaimed.
Part of the plan
Meanwhile in Nevada, Republican Senate hopeful Sharron Angle is in hot water for asserting that women who get pregnant through rape must be forced to give birth because these pregnancies are all part of God's plan. Good catch by Vanessa Valenti of Feministing.
"You know, I'm a Christian, and I believe that God has a plan and a purpose for each one of our lives and that he can intercede in all kinds of situations and we need to have a little faith in many things," Angle said in an interview with a conservative broadcaster in January.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Pulse for a complete list of articles on health care reform, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
As kovie noted in Quick Hits, today the SCOTUS ruled that that Second Amendment "applies equally to the federal government and the states", as Alito wrote in his opinion. The case was around a ban on handguns in Chicago and the suburb of Oak Park, IL, which the Brady Center says is the last two places where such bans exist, following the SCOTUS decision in the Heller decision to strike down DC's ban here. Technically the decision did not strike down the ban, but ordered a federal appeals court to re-examine the decision. But the general consensus I'm hearing appears to be that the laws will be struck down sooner or later.
Post-Heller, the District of Columbia officials rightfully enacted stringent requirements in order to get a handgun, including demonstrating knowledge of firearms use and DC laws, completing a firearms safety course including at least four hours of instruction, fingerprinting, submitting photographs, background check, and others (and speaking as a resident, I'm grateful for these restrictions). All of these are reasonable, and if they go down, DC will probably once again be known as the murder capital of the nation. Not to mention that the NRA-sponsored amendment to the Voting Rights Act that was, which would eliminate other restrictions like a ban on firearms within a certain distance from schools or playgrounds, as well as banning the city from enacting any laws relating to firearms. The amendment was rejected as the basis for a compromise on the back of unanimous opposition from the DC Council and the Mayor, but was considered for a time by Norton and drives home the point on how gun "rights" advocates are hell-bent on eliminating what's left of urban gun control among nearly 600,000 residents (and more when VA and MD residents stream in on weekdays) in the nation's capital.
But hey, as Adam notes at DailyKos, if you're concerned about your safety, Alito and the majority says you can just get your own damn gun:
[P]etitioners and many others who live in high-crime areas dispute the proposition that the Second Amendment right does not protect minorities and those lacking political clout. The plight of Chicagoans living in high-crime areas was recently highlighted when two Illinois legislators representing Chicago districts called on the Governor to deploy the Illinois National Guard to patrol the City's streets. The legislators noted that the number of Chicago homicide victims during the current year equaled the number of American soldiers killed during that same period in Afghanistan and Iraq and that 80% of the Chicago victims were black. Amici supporting incorporation of the right to keep and bear arms contend that the right is especially important for women and members of other groups that may be especially vulnerable to violent crime. If, as petitioners believe, their safety and the safety of other law-abiding members of the community would be enhanced by the possession of handguns in the home for self-defense, then the Second Amendment right protects the rights of minorities and other residents of high-crime areas whose needs are not being met by elected public officials.
In somewhat better SCOTUS news today, the court also ruled that a right-wing Christian group can't get legal funding and recognition from a California college if they discriminate on the basis of religion and sexual orientation.
The Supreme Court says a law school can legally deny recognition to a Christian student group that won't let gays join.
The court on Monday turned away an appeal from the Christian Legal Society, which sued to get funding and recognition from the University of California's Hastings College of the Law.
The CLS requires that voting members sign a statement of faith and regards "unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle" as being inconsistent with that faith.
But Hastings said no recognized campus groups may exclude people due to religious belief or sexual orientation.
The court upheld the lower court rulings saying the Christian group's First Amendment rights of association, free speech and free exercise were not violated by the college's decision.
The court also rejected a challenge to San Francisco's universal health care law from business groups upset that businesses are required to cover their workers or chip in towards city coverage. Many businesses have passed this fee along to its consumers. On my last visit to SF, there was a surcharge leveled on consumers as well, as the restaurant I visited (Dosa) noted at the bottom of the menu an additional fee on top of my bill. On the other hand, the program has covered 53,000 individuals and, according to the city, resulted in a 70% drop in emergency room visits at San Francisco General Hospital.
The Supreme Court's refusal this week to hear the claims of Maher Arar, a Canadian sent to Syria to be interrogated under torture in 2002, is appropriately being condemned as another example of the U.S. avoiding any legal or moral responsibility for government- sanctioned torture.
What seems to shock and outrage people about the Arar case in particular is that the facts are not in dispute. Canada, whose security services were complicit in his rendition to Syria, has publicly acknowledged its responsibility, compensated Arar,and launched a criminal investigation of U.S. and Syrian officials. The United States, on the other hand, has still neither admitted its role nor held any U.S. officials accountable. And, it hasn't paid Arar a dime.
The United States' refusal to acknowledge its role in the torture of terrorism suspects even when faced with overwhelming evidence of U.S. involvement has become an unfortunate pattern. But it's heartening to see that other countries aren't dropping the matter.
On Monday, the European Court of Human Rights announced that it would hear the case of Khaled el-Masri, a German citizen seized by Macedonian authorities at the request of the United States. El-Masri was beaten and abused during interrogations in both Macedonia and the notorious "Salt Pit" in Afghanistan. Authorities unceremoniously dumped him on a roadside in Albania without charging him with any wrongdoing.His case against U.S. officials was dismissed by a federal court on the grounds that it would reveal "state secrets." The Bush and Obama Administrations have both invoked State Secrets to stop the disclosure of evidence that may reveal government misconduct.
And last year, an Italian court convicted 21 alleged CIA operatives and a US air force operator for their role in the kidnapping and rendition to Egypt of Abu Omar, a Muslim cleric who was already under surveillance by Italian authorities, who suspected him of having ties to al Qaeda. Omar claims he was held incommunicado and tortured in an Egyptian prison for seven months. He was eventually released without charge.
The Obama administration has repeatedly insisted that it wants to look forward, not backward, and so has refused to examine the role of senior U.S. officials in the torture of terrorism suspects. In adopting that position, the government is reneging on its obligations under the Convention Against Torture, which demands both that torturers be held accountable and that victims receive remedies.
Until the U.S. lives up to those responsibilities, its past practices and officers will continue to be scrutinized by foreign governments and justice systems. Those verdicts will cast judgment not only on the past administration's conduct, however. To the extent that foreign governments have to intervene to bring justice to victims of U.S. policies, they will reveal the extent of the United States' current respect for the rule of law as well.
On Monday, President Barack Obama nominated solicitor general Elena Kagan to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court. Kagan's nomination has raised eyebrows among progressives. Despite a long career in legal academia, Kagan has published very little. She seems to have studiously avoided taking a stand on almost any controversial issue. Ruth Coniff of the Progressive calls the Kagan pick "a triumph of the bland."
"Partial Birth Abortion" ban
As a White House aide, Kagan wrote a memo urging President Bill Clinton to support a ban on so-called "partial birth abortion." At the time, the House had passed a sweeping late-term abortion ban with no exceptions for the life and health of the mother. Clinton asked Kagan whether he should throw his support behind a more moderate Senate version of the same bill. She recommended a "compromise"-a ban with a maternal health exemption. In the end, Congress passed the extreme version and Clinton vetoed it.
Suzy Khimm of Mother Jones characterizes the memo as "more indicative of a political strategy than a legal argument." In other words, Kagan was giving strategic advice to the president about what would be politically feasible, not legal advice about the government's powers to regulate abortion. Kagan argued that the president should support the "compromise" position even though the Justice Department thought it was unconstitutional, according to Jodi Jacobson of RH Reality Check.
At TAPPED, Monica Potts argues that the memo gives us little indication of how Kagan would vote on abortion as a justice.
No Harriet Miers
There's no question that Kagan is possessed of a formidable intellect. Stephanie Mencimer of Mother Jones quotes one of her former law school students, Elie Mystal, sharing his experience with Kagan on the blog Above the Law:
Like Frodo on Weathertop, there are some wounds that never fully heal. Professor Kagan massacred me intellectually, and brutalized my pride. I got some form of a B in her class (I honestly don't remember if there was a modifier - I've tried to suppress those memories). Kagan was a frightening professor for those who wanted to match wits with the brightest legal minds in the world. For people like me, people who just wanted to get through law school with minimal mental damage, Kagan was nothing short of terrifying.
That's the best news I've heard all day.
Kagan has never been a judge, but that's not necessarily a deal-breaker in itself. As Steve Benen points out at the Washington Monthly, over a third of the 111 justices of the Supreme Court have had no previous judging experience.
A missed opportunity
Scott Lemieux argues in the American Prospect that Obama is wasting a rare political opportunity to confirm a more liberal justice. Right now, the Democrats still have a sizable, though not filibuster-proof, majority in the Senate. Lemieux argues that Obama is almost certain to get another Supreme Court pick before the end of his term. Then again, he points out, the Democrats are likely to lose Senate seats in the midterm elections.
If Obama were ever going to get a strong liberal on the bench, this would have been the time. No date has been set for a confirmation hearing. Kagan is in Washington today, courting lawmakers.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Pulse for a complete list of articles on health care reform, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
by Lindsay Beyerstein, Media Consortium blogger
On Monday, President Barack Obama nominated solicitor general Elena Kagan to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court. Kagan's nomination has raised eyebrows among progressives. Despite a long career in legal academia, Kagan has published very little. She seems to have studiously avoided taking a stand on almost any controversial issue. Ruth Conniff of the Progressive calls the Kagan pick "a triumph of the bland."
"Partial Birth Abortion" ban
As a White House aide, Kagan wrote a memo urging President Bill Clinton to support a ban on so-called "partial birth abortion." At the time, the House had passed a sweeping late-term abortion ban with no exceptions for the life and health of the mother. Clinton asked Kagan whether he should throw his support behind a more moderate Senate version of the same bill. She recommended a "compromise"-a ban with a maternal health exemption. In the end, Congress passed the extreme version and Clinton vetoed it.
Suzy Khimm of Mother Jones characterizes the memo as "more indicative of a political strategy than a legal argument." In other words, Kagan was giving strategic advice to the president about what would be politically feasible, not legal advice about the government's powers to regulate abortion. Kagan argued that the president should support the "compromise" position even though the Justice Department thought it was unconstitutional, according to Jodi Jacobson of RH Reality Check.
At TAPPED, Monica Potts argues that the memo gives us little indication of how Kagan would vote on abortion as a justice.
No Harriet Miers
There's no question that Kagan is possessed of a formidable intellect. Stephanie Mencimer of Mother Jones quotes one of her former law school students, Elie Mystal, sharing his experience with Kagan on the blog Above the Law:
Like Frodo on Weathertop, there are some wounds that never fully heal. Professor Kagan massacred me intellectually, and brutalized my pride. I got some form of a B in her class (I honestly don't remember if there was a modifier - I've tried to suppress those memories). Kagan was a frightening professor for those who wanted to match wits with the brightest legal minds in the world. For people like me, people who just wanted to get through law school with minimal mental damage, Kagan was nothing short of terrifying.
That's the best news I've heard all day.
Kagan has never been a judge, but that's not necessarily a deal-breaker in itself. As Steve Benen points out at the Washington Monthly, over a third of the 111 justices of the Supreme Court have had no previous judging experience.
A missed opportunity
Scott Lemieux argues in the American Prospect that Obama is wasting a rare political opportunity to confirm a more liberal justice. Right now, the Democrats still have a sizable, though not filibuster-proof, majority in the Senate. Lemieux argues that Obama is almost certain to get another Supreme Court pick before the end of his term. Then again, he points out, the Democrats are likely to lose Senate seats in the midterm elections.
If Obama were ever going to get a strong liberal on the bench, this would have been the time. No date has been set for a confirmation hearing. Kagan is in Washington today, courting lawmakers.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Pulse for a complete list of articles on health care reform, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
In 2004, the United Church of Christ produced a television commercial promoting its inclusive approach to organized faith. The ad showed two nightclub-style bouncers guarding the rope line of a church as they denied entry to a gay male couple, several people of color, and a man in a wheelchair. By contrast, a white family of four had no problems getting through.
"Jesus didn't turn people away" was the ad's tagline, but CBS did, turning down the commercial which was intended for broadcast during that year's Super Bowl. The 30-second spot apparently violated the network's policy of "prohibiting advocacy ads, even ones that carry an 'implicit' endorsement for a side in a public debate."
In 2004, the United Church of Christ produced a television commercial promoting its inclusive approach to organized faith. The ad showed two nightclub-style bouncers guarding the rope line of a church as they denied entry to a gay male couple, several people of color, and a man in a wheelchair. By contrast, a white family of four had no problems getting through.
"Jesus didn't turn people away" was the ad's tagline, but CBS did, turning down the commercial which was intended for broadcast during that year's Super Bowl. The 30-second spot apparently violated the network's policy of "prohibiting advocacy ads, even ones that carry an 'implicit' endorsement for a side in a public debate."
Below is the speech that Sotomayor gave in 2001 at Berkeley, California. The "controversial" part is near the end. The below are the key paragraphs which provide the key context which is being left out by the media. Clearly Judge Sotomayor is referring to Discrimination Cases. The italicized sentence is the supposedly "controversial" one.
"Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court THAT EQUALITY OF WORK REQUIRED EQUALITY IN TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT.
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise.
Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.
Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on CASES WHICH UPHELD BOTH SEX AND RACE DISCRIMINATION in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a GENDER DISCRIMINATION CASE. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown."
SO IF SOMEONE JUST DOESN'T GET IT, and still buys this right-wing talking point, here is my strategy:
Ask your (presumably) devout Christian friend what it would be like having 9 athiests on the Supreme Court and how that would affect the Court's rulings on religious expression; or, if rather, having a few religious persons on the Court might lead to better decisions? Or ask a NRA member whether having a gun owner on the Court would benefit its 2nd Amendment jurisprudence (assuming there is going to continue to be one). If they have any ounce of honesty, they will tell you it would make a positive difference. Ask a libertarian or republican whether a Supreme Court of Justices who rent would make equally good decisions in Takings Clause cases? You get the picture.
WAYNE, Pa. (AP) -- Democrat Barack Obama told voters Saturday he would push an aggressive economic agenda as president: cutting taxes for the middle class, raising taxes on the wealthy, pouring money into "green energy" and requiring employers to set up retirement saving plans for their workers.
Oh wait. There's nothing about it in there. Yeah, it's buried in paragraph 14:
Obama said McCain would be likely to appoint Supreme Court nominees who would allow states to outlaw abortion. "You're just one justice away from that," he said, alluding to the court's narrow ideological divisions.
First up, let me just say "whew" that enough vestigial respect for the Rule of Law existed within the Supreme Court to make this ruling. In a properly functioning Court, this would be 9-0. I can't help but give some credit to Ted Kennedy for killing the Bork nomination, who was replaced in nomination by none other than today's decisive vote, Anthony Kennedy. Had Bork reached the bench, there would be no such rulings. How fitting that it was not one, but two Kennedys that led to this momentous ruling.
I partly wonder if Justice Kennedy is considering his place in history with this ruling, having seen the writing on the wall of how history will judge the Bush team. Jeffrey Toobin never quite came out and said it, but he strongly implied that O'Connor regretted her decision in Bush v Gore. Maybe Kennedy does too. I know the extremism of the Bush administration helped me realize what the true face of conservativism was, and reject it entirely. We'll see if Kennedy is just throwing us a bone to prop up his "swing" status (not likely given the import of this issue to Bush and Unitary Executive types) or if he's actually drifted ideologically in the next set of rulings (due up the remainder of this month).
Republican John McCain told reporters in Boston that he had not yet read the opinion, but expressed concerns about the rights it might impart to the people being held there.
"These are unlawful combatants, they are not American citizens and I think we should pay attention to Justice Roberts' opinion in this decision," McCain said, referring to the chief justice's dissent. "But it is a decision that the Supreme Court has made. Now we need to move forward. As you know I always favored closing Guantanamo Bay and I still think we ought to do that."
Today's Supreme Court decision ensures that we can protect our nation and bring terrorists to justice, while also protecting our core values. The Court's decision is a rejection of the Bush Administration's attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo - yet another failed policy supported by John McCain.
On Monday, April 28, the Supreme Court rejected a constitutional challenge to Indiana's law (Crawford v. Marion County Elections Board) requiring voters to show a government-issued photo identification before they may cast a ballot. Crawford plaintiffs argued that Indiana's strict photo ID requirements disproportionately disenfranchise minority voters. Donna Massey, Project Vote Board Member and a supporter of voting rights, issued this statement:
"The Supreme Court ruling is disappointing for Americans who want the next president to be chosen in a free and fair election in which all eligible voters have an equal opportunity to participate. The voters most harmed by the ruling are first-time voters who are registering this year in record numbers. If legislators in the 24 states where strict photo voter ID rules have been introduced take the Court's decision as a green light, voters across the country will find it more difficult to cast their ballots this Election Day. Our democracy works best when every American participates.
The real purpose of strict photo voter ID rules is to make it more difficult for some Americans to vote. It's the voters who are less likely to vote who are also less likely to have government issued ID, such as young people, the poor, elderly, and Americans of color. A University of Washington study, for example, found that in Indiana 22 percent of African-American voters lack proper identification compared to 16 percent of white voters. Twenty-one percent of voters earning less than $40,000 a year lack the necessary ID compared to just 13 percent of those earning more than $40,000. All Americans have a right to vote, even if they don't have a photo ID.
By a 7-2 majority, the Supreme Court effectively restored sentencing authority in Federal cases to judges. The effect of the opinion is that District Court judges now have the leeway to use the 1984 Sentencing Reform Act as a guideline instead of the rule, allowing discretion on sentencing to return to judges for the first time in 23 years.
This is particularly encouraging:
One decision was particularly emphatic in saying judges are free to disagree with guidelines that call for much longer sentences for offenses involving crack cocaine than for crimes involving an equivalent amount of cocaine in powdered form.
The effect of this can't be overstated. Now, in federal cases, sentences will be made on a case-by-case basis, instead of applying draconian and arbitrary Federal guidelines that are often quite cruel and unjust, contributing heavily to overcrowding prisons with non-violent drug offenders. While this will not affect state cases, it is a significant signpost in a trend moving away from arbitrary sentencing statutes that crowd prisons, ruin lives, and insult justice.
UPDATE: See TalkLeft for a some insightful discussion of the opinion http://www.talkleft....
STATE BLOGS
