Good Judge Errs
By Quin Posted in Analysis and Predictions — Comments (7) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I think we can all agree that Jeff Sutton is a wonderful addition to the bench. But I argue in this column that he erred in ruling that a trial judge had improperly imposed a harsh sentence on a repeat felon.
OT confirmation story
by evanm85
Andrew
by BillM
Please give Evan's link it's own thread. Oughtta generate some discussion!
Here is text of Schumer's speech
by BoBo
http://www.acsblog.org/news-and-announcements-text-of-senator-schumers-s...
"Given the track record of this President and the experience of obfuscation at the hearings, with respect to the Supreme Court, at least: I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm a Supreme Court nominee EXCEPT in extraordinary circumstances.
They must prove by actions—not words—that they are in the mainstream, rather than the Senate proving that they are not."
I second that -- Evan's
by Jix
I second that -- Evan's article deserves a new thread. I just love how anytime conservative get anything accomplished, Dems say they were tricked or "hoodwinked." One would think that a U.S. Congressman would be a somewhat learned individual... But then again...
BTW
by BoBo
I think if Specter does do any investigation of Roberts and Alito concerning remarks made during their confirmation hearings, he also needs to do an investigation of Stephen Breyer for inappropriate contact with senators.
Schmuck Schumer
by Dienekes
it is risible for this clown to be accusing ANYBODY of being outside the mainstream.
What you seem to be saying is that even if the District Court was in error, their error was within their judgement (i.e. 48 months is within the 41 to 51 months).
Sutton's point is that the judge made an error in judgement which the judge himself clearly states was a part of his process in coming to a sentencing length.
You said in your lead in above "that he erred in ruling that a trial judge had improperly imposed a harsh sentence on a repeat felon."
That's not what Sutton said. He said, the judge tells us that he relied on the information in deciding 48 versus any other number between 41 and 51 and We (the CCA) say that was an error.
The point is that ASSUMING Sutton is right and the judge did make the error, it could be an error that costs Hamad 7 months behind bars since without that information, Hamad might have only gotten 41 months.
Now, of course, the irony would be if the new District Court Judge who is re-doing the sentencing could, without the information, assign Hamad 51 months or longer.
Oz
www.first-cut-politics.blospot.com