Asscrack goes after Judges
- Thread starter Moonbeam
- Start date
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Well, Ashcroft certainly seems well on his way to being the first Minister of Miniluv, or Ministry of Love in Oldspeak.
It would be interesting to see judges compile a list of federal prosecutors who use unprofessional or dirty tactics and/or faking evidence. Put them on the list if the request sentences the judge feels not proportionate with the crime and circumstance. They can them circulate the list among themselves, and make it public. Wonder how that would go over with our fair Minister?
It would be interesting to see judges compile a list of federal prosecutors who use unprofessional or dirty tactics and/or faking evidence. Put them on the list if the request sentences the judge feels not proportionate with the crime and circumstance. They can them circulate the list among themselves, and make it public. Wonder how that would go over with our fair Minister?
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Oh, I just registered 
Fairly painless, and enough material is derived form the Times to make the 30 seconds worthwhile
Fairly painless, and enough material is derived form the Times to make the 30 seconds worthwhile
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Tell you what I do see and hear UQ, and that is many on the right who do not complain about lenient judges, but rather "liberal" judges. You would acknowledge that liberal equates to left for our purposes I am sure. There certainly is room to debate some sentences handed out. Curiously, the ones that seem to outrage are the excessively lenient ones. Certainly this has happened.
My problem here is that it is the concern of the Justice Department to promote the government's case in a trial, but not to intimidate or coerce judges to get a "correct" sentence. Certainly this is no idle project. It has a purpose, and one not hard to determine.
The second point is this is not about justice. If it were, Ashcroft would be interested in judges who give excessively harsh sentences too. Justice is NOT about giving a pothead years and years behind bars, which is totally disproportionate with the crime.
Originally posted by: NesuD
Silly Beamie! I would have to register for the NY times to read that so i will have to take your word for it.
No you don't; they cut and paste all their editorials/articles/news stories, so why not just read some of the other liberal papers, like the LA Times? The NY Times is just a bunch of plagiarizing liberals with an agenda.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Originally posted by: NesuD
Silly Beamie! I would have to register for the NY times to read that so i will have to take your word for it.
No you don't; they cut and paste all their editorials/articles/news stories, so why not just read some of the other liberal papers, like the LA Times? The NY Times is just a bunch of plagiarizing liberals with an agenda.
That's nice. Now how about the substance of the article.
Yes Yes Yes. It's all part of the vast right wing conspiracy. Yawn. The justice department thinks there's too many "below guideline" sentences being handed out and not enough appeals against them. Appeals that are decided on and handled in the field. They now have to report those sentences to D.C. so they can make the decision on whether to appeal or not. I call it micromanagement, you call it what you want. The judges are whining because no judge likes to be second guessed.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
For you -
The conservatives (read Republicans) have made judge's sentencing an issue for years. If you have missed that tidbit, I can't help that. Vast right wing conspiracy? If you wish to frame it that way fine, and we can all chip in to buy you your favorite piece of apparel
Perhaps that famous liberal Rehnquist is behind it all. Two hats for you. Do judges not like having their sentences questioned? Of course. Maybe you think prosecutors would like judges attempting to influence them based on their past performance. Of course Ashcroft is above any such thing. Maybe you think judges are out to subvert the government. A third hat then
Congratulations, you have earned your first internet hat trick.
Now maybe we can get back to a discussion without yawning and such, but that would take all the fun out of making superfluous remarks, wouldn't it?
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
For you -
The conservatives (read Republicans) have made judge's sentencing an issue for years. If you have missed that tidbit, I can't help that. Vast right wing conspiracy? If you wish to frame it that way fine, and we can all chip in to buy you you're favorite piece of apparel
Perhaps that famous liberal Rehnquist is behind it all. Two hats for you. Do judges not like having their sentences questioned? Of course. Maybe you think prosecutors would like judges attempting to influence them based on their past performance. Of course Ashcroft is above any such thing. Maybe you think judges are out to subvert the government. A third hat then
Congratulations, you have earned your first internet hat trick.
Now maybe we can get back to a discussion without yawning and such, but that would take all the fun out of making superfluous remarks, wouldn't it?
Did you have anything intelligent to add or is it going to be a focus on the first two (sarcastic) sentences in my post and some drivel about tin foil hats?
- Oct 10, 1999
- 31,294
- 12,817
- 136
pwned.Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
For you -
The conservatives (read Republicans) have made judge's sentencing an issue for years. If you have missed that tidbit, I can't help that. Vast right wing conspiracy? If you wish to frame it that way fine, and we can all chip in to buy you your favorite piece of apparel
Perhaps that famous liberal Rehnquist is behind it all. Two hats for you. Do judges not like having their sentences questioned? Of course. Maybe you think prosecutors would like judges attempting to influence them based on their past performance. Of course Ashcroft is above any such thing. Maybe you think judges are out to subvert the government. A third hat then
Congratulations, you have earned your first internet hat trick.
Now maybe we can get back to a discussion without yawning and such, but that would take all the fun out of making superfluous remarks, wouldn't it?
Yes Yes Yes. It's all part of the vast right wing conspiracy. Yawn. The justice department thinks there's too many "below guideline" sentences being handed out and not enough appeals against them. Appeals that are decided on and handled in the field. They now have to report those sentences to D.C. so they can make the decision on whether to appeal or not. I call it micromanagement, you call it what you want. The judges are whining because no judge likes to be second guessed.
-------------------
What does it buy you calling intimidation micromanagement. Micromanagement is a control freak's game. What is Asshole's game? Why this judicial review? What's the concern about light sentences. What party wins votes by building prisons? What color are the people in jail? What party plays the Willy Horton card?
-------------------
What does it buy you calling intimidation micromanagement. Micromanagement is a control freak's game. What is Asshole's game? Why this judicial review? What's the concern about light sentences. What party wins votes by building prisons? What color are the people in jail? What party plays the Willy Horton card?
By the way, UQ, would you explain to me how to use the search function. I looked through the threads for something on Asshole and didn't see anything. Apparently the subject had dropped a bit out of sight. My assumption was that it would be a raging issue since it's vital for the preservation of freedom that we get rid of Bush, the Disaster, and get an elected President. Turns out the tough talking Republicans are cowards when it comes to security, rather give up the Constitution for a little mental security. "I don't have to worry about loosing MY rights, cause I never do anything wrong." Hehe, just wait. Your neighbor likes your house, sticks grass seeds in your lawn and you're gone. To the paranoid delusional, everybody's guilty of something. You might be innocent, but we can't take a chance. You have to look at the ends, never mind the means.
Mandatory minimums and other sentancing guidelines are ridiculous. We should trust the judges handling the case to make the right calls. Who the F is Asscraft to know any better? Don't answer that, 'cause he's not.
I would think we have a far more serious problem with our prison/parole system than judges handing out the occaisional light sentence. How about we actually start enforcing the sentences that are levied and stop paroling the worst criminals just so we can lock up the lesser ones?
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
CaptnKirk
Lifer
- Jul 25, 2002
- 10,053
- 0
- 71
I thought that this was important enough to bring back into the conversation.
I lived in St. Louis, Missouri for 6 years, and watched the damage that this man did to the Government of the State,
it's Budget, it's shcool programs, and it's Judicial system. He was thrown out of office when a dead opponent beat him.
I was stunned to see Bush anoint him to an even more powerful position than the Senatorial position he lost, where he
could impose his Extreme Christian Conservative Agenda on all that were outside of his mindset.
A Preachers son, a Fundamentalist Minister, school mate of Kenny-Boy Lay.
LA Times Editorial
Clip:
In matters of faith and law, Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft generally distrusts the role of discretion ? it is uniformity, if not rigidity, that defines his vision. Over the last two years, Ashcroft has radically reshaped the Justice Department, pushing aside suspected moderates and promoting young extremists who will not hesitate in carrying out his orders. He now has turned to the federal courts to compel uniformity, ordering prosecutors, in a July 28 memo, to report any judge who imposes a criminal sentence lighter than what is called for by federal guidelines.
Ashcroft is seeking to prevent judges from tailoring sentences to fit individual crimes. If successful, sentences in the United States would be meted out with all the speed and care involved in calculating a mortgage rate on the Internet. Judges are resisting this robotic approach to sentencing and are fighting to preserve a tradition of judicial discretion that runs to the early days of our country. In a system without such discretion, pleas for mercy or extenuating circumstances would be considered immaterial to justice.
At issue are 1984 guidelines that established a set of mandatory minimum sentences for federal crimes. Both conservative and liberal judges have long denounced these guidelines as imposing unduly long sentences and reducing the ability of courts to fashion punishments that fit particular cases. The sentences are so severe that some judges have resigned rather than impose a 10-year mandatory minimum prison term for first-time drug offenders. Most judges have struggled to work within the guidelines to fashion more just sentences.
For instance, a federal judge may use a "downward departure" from the rules to reduce a sentence if there are mitigating factors, such as cooperation with the government. Such reductions in sentences, which are used in 35% of cases annually, are often supported by prosecutors. According to the American Bar Assn., prosecutors have appealed only 19 of more than 11,000 such sentence reductions. Likewise, some of the nation's most conservative jurists have opposed restrictions on the authority of judges to "depart." Chief Justice William Rehnquist, for example, warned Congress that restrictions "would seriously impair the ability of courts to impose just and reasonable sentences."
It is not only judicial discretion but prosecutorial discretion that Ashcroft is seeking to curtail. He has effectively removed the question of sentencing from the local decisions of prosecutors to his centralized control. The message to both judges and prosecutors is obvious. If a prosecutor favors a reduction in sentencing, he or she will now be identified (with the offending judge) to Ashcroft. Few prosecutors will risk Ashcroft's ire. Instead, they will refuse to deal with the obvious inequities in sentencing and stick to the guidelines. Denounced as a kind of blacklisting, the new policy is particularly troubling because of Ashcroft's history of attacking judges who don't fit his vision of justice. One of the most notorious incidents was addressed in his close confirmation fight.
As a senator from Missouri, Ashcroft blocked the elevation of Missouri state Supreme Court Justice Ronnie White to the federal Court of Appeals. A widely respected African American jurist (he recently was made chief justice of the Missouri Supreme Court), White was considered a natural for the federal court. Ashcroft, however, led a vicious campaign against White's confirmation and labeled the judge as "pro-criminal." In particular, Ashcroft insisted that White was hostile to the death penalty, even though White had voted to uphold 41 out of 59 death sentences that came before him.
Now, Ashcroft believes that federal judges who lower sentences are violating the intent of the federal law. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that such decisions are the very essence of independent judicial review and has held that the sentencing guidelines anticipate such departures. Justice Anthony Kennedy, a conservative on criminal matters, held that this country had a long "tradition for the sentencing judge to consider every convicted person as an individual and every case as a unique study in human failings that sometimes mitigated, sometimes magnify, the crime and punishment."
Ashcroft would replace this tradition with a system that imposed sentences without variation and without understanding. Indeed, in his memo to U.S. attorneys, Ashcroft quotes Rehnquist as establishing that it is Congress, not the courts, that set sentencing policy. However, Ashcroft misrepresented Rehnquist's comments by omitting Rehnquist's further statement that efforts to gather sentencing records "could amount to an unwarranted and ill-considered effort to intimidate individual judges in the performance of their judicial duties."
The country now faces a choice between two visions of justice. Ashcroft wants judges to share his view of defendants as statistics rather than individuals. However, justice is found in the very details that Ashcroft wants to ignore in sentencing. In this system of forced ignorance, justice would be blind not to prejudice but to principle.
I lived in St. Louis, Missouri for 6 years, and watched the damage that this man did to the Government of the State,
it's Budget, it's shcool programs, and it's Judicial system. He was thrown out of office when a dead opponent beat him.
I was stunned to see Bush anoint him to an even more powerful position than the Senatorial position he lost, where he
could impose his Extreme Christian Conservative Agenda on all that were outside of his mindset.
A Preachers son, a Fundamentalist Minister, school mate of Kenny-Boy Lay.
LA Times Editorial
Clip:
In matters of faith and law, Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft generally distrusts the role of discretion ? it is uniformity, if not rigidity, that defines his vision. Over the last two years, Ashcroft has radically reshaped the Justice Department, pushing aside suspected moderates and promoting young extremists who will not hesitate in carrying out his orders. He now has turned to the federal courts to compel uniformity, ordering prosecutors, in a July 28 memo, to report any judge who imposes a criminal sentence lighter than what is called for by federal guidelines.
Ashcroft is seeking to prevent judges from tailoring sentences to fit individual crimes. If successful, sentences in the United States would be meted out with all the speed and care involved in calculating a mortgage rate on the Internet. Judges are resisting this robotic approach to sentencing and are fighting to preserve a tradition of judicial discretion that runs to the early days of our country. In a system without such discretion, pleas for mercy or extenuating circumstances would be considered immaterial to justice.
At issue are 1984 guidelines that established a set of mandatory minimum sentences for federal crimes. Both conservative and liberal judges have long denounced these guidelines as imposing unduly long sentences and reducing the ability of courts to fashion punishments that fit particular cases. The sentences are so severe that some judges have resigned rather than impose a 10-year mandatory minimum prison term for first-time drug offenders. Most judges have struggled to work within the guidelines to fashion more just sentences.
For instance, a federal judge may use a "downward departure" from the rules to reduce a sentence if there are mitigating factors, such as cooperation with the government. Such reductions in sentences, which are used in 35% of cases annually, are often supported by prosecutors. According to the American Bar Assn., prosecutors have appealed only 19 of more than 11,000 such sentence reductions. Likewise, some of the nation's most conservative jurists have opposed restrictions on the authority of judges to "depart." Chief Justice William Rehnquist, for example, warned Congress that restrictions "would seriously impair the ability of courts to impose just and reasonable sentences."
It is not only judicial discretion but prosecutorial discretion that Ashcroft is seeking to curtail. He has effectively removed the question of sentencing from the local decisions of prosecutors to his centralized control. The message to both judges and prosecutors is obvious. If a prosecutor favors a reduction in sentencing, he or she will now be identified (with the offending judge) to Ashcroft. Few prosecutors will risk Ashcroft's ire. Instead, they will refuse to deal with the obvious inequities in sentencing and stick to the guidelines. Denounced as a kind of blacklisting, the new policy is particularly troubling because of Ashcroft's history of attacking judges who don't fit his vision of justice. One of the most notorious incidents was addressed in his close confirmation fight.
As a senator from Missouri, Ashcroft blocked the elevation of Missouri state Supreme Court Justice Ronnie White to the federal Court of Appeals. A widely respected African American jurist (he recently was made chief justice of the Missouri Supreme Court), White was considered a natural for the federal court. Ashcroft, however, led a vicious campaign against White's confirmation and labeled the judge as "pro-criminal." In particular, Ashcroft insisted that White was hostile to the death penalty, even though White had voted to uphold 41 out of 59 death sentences that came before him.
Now, Ashcroft believes that federal judges who lower sentences are violating the intent of the federal law. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that such decisions are the very essence of independent judicial review and has held that the sentencing guidelines anticipate such departures. Justice Anthony Kennedy, a conservative on criminal matters, held that this country had a long "tradition for the sentencing judge to consider every convicted person as an individual and every case as a unique study in human failings that sometimes mitigated, sometimes magnify, the crime and punishment."
Ashcroft would replace this tradition with a system that imposed sentences without variation and without understanding. Indeed, in his memo to U.S. attorneys, Ashcroft quotes Rehnquist as establishing that it is Congress, not the courts, that set sentencing policy. However, Ashcroft misrepresented Rehnquist's comments by omitting Rehnquist's further statement that efforts to gather sentencing records "could amount to an unwarranted and ill-considered effort to intimidate individual judges in the performance of their judicial duties."
The country now faces a choice between two visions of justice. Ashcroft wants judges to share his view of defendants as statistics rather than individuals. However, justice is found in the very details that Ashcroft wants to ignore in sentencing. In this system of forced ignorance, justice would be blind not to prejudice but to principle.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 389
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter