Bush Administration: Restore The Binding Nature of Sentencing Guidelines

As announced by Alberto Gonzales on June 1, 2007:

Restore Binding Nature of Sentencing Guidelines:

For every federal crime, the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines provide a range of punishments in which a criminal convict’s sentence should fall. In U.S. v. Booker, the Supreme Court held that the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory, freeing federal courts to go below the guidelines range when they deem it reasonable to do so in specific cases. The proposed Sentencing Reform Act will:

Restore the binding nature of the guidelines by making the bottom of the guideline range for each offense a minimum sentence that must be imposed when the elements of the offense are proven; and

Provide rights of appeal to both the United States and the defendant to challenge the sentencing determinations made by the district court.

Except, of course, in the case of Special Assistants to the President and Chief of Staffs for the Vice President whose silence on the wrongdoings of the Vice President must be maintained.

< The DOJ Manual on Commutation | R.I.P. James Capozzola >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    For phone trees, here's the WH phone book (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by lambert on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 10:26:26 PM EST

    Since the switchboard will be jammed, it might be a good idea to have ALL the numbers...

    Just another distraction (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Sailor on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 11:00:36 PM EST
    free scooter!
    While thousands of Americans die for a different set of bush's lies.

    Monarchs (none / 0) (#1)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 10:09:19 PM EST

    Divine Right of Bush (none / 0) (#3)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 10:11:36 PM EST
    Don't even consider reading (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 10:10:25 PM EST
    David Brooks today. Just don't.

    I saw it (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 10:20:10 PM EST
    Have chosen to ignore it as the news coverage, to my great surprise, has been incredibly harsh on Bush. Republicans on the extreme defensive.

    Sure (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 10:24:40 PM EST
    The SUSA poll is encouraging, too.

    I must say that I'm feeling a bit like DawnG tonight. Shouting at the brick wall just doesn't feel so useful anymore.


    So Big Tent.... (none / 0) (#7)
    by ctrenta on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 10:35:45 PM EST

    Scooter Libby's sentence has been commuted and you still don't support investigations into impeachment.

    WIth all due respect, what will it take for you to do so? What are looking for? What will be the final straw before you realize, it's the right thing to support?

    I'm surprised this didn't do it for you.

    Hear, hear (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by scarshapedstar on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 07:56:46 AM EST
    I don't care if the impeachment fails. I don't care if it isn't civil or prudent. Somebody's got to set the record straight and tell the world that these acts by George W. Bush were criminal:

    1. Stole Florida election in 2000.

    1. Lied on Iraq to Congress, the Public, and the United Nations.
    2. 9-11 Cover-Up and Obstruction of Justice.
    3. Violated Rights of Citizens including Habeas Corpus.
    4. NSA Program to Listen to Citizens without Warrant.
    5. Violated International Treaties Including Geneva Convention.
    6. Actively Encouraged, as a Policy, Use of Torture.
    7. Gross Negligence on Hurricane Katrina.
    8. Iraq Contract Corruption--Bremer "Lost" $8 billion in cash, sole source awards, and gross negligence in managing the peace.
    9. Stole Ohio election in 2004.

    Needless to say, now we can tack on:

    11. Being a direct accomplice to the public disclosure of the identity of a US intelligence operative.

    Enough is enough. If Pelosi remains supine then we find a friendly state legislature to impeach this sack of sh*t and his puppeteer. It's time.


    A stupid futile gesture (3.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 09:27:19 AM EST
    I want a meaningful effort to end the Iraq Debacle.

    Impeachment is the best route to ending the war! (none / 0) (#13)
    by ctrenta on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 02:17:41 AM EST
    The following is a well-put and intelligent editorial from my hometown paper, the Brattleboro Reformer.

    The politicians who oppose the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney say that energy should devoted toward ending the war. The reality is that as long as the Bush administration is in power, the United States will stay in Iraq -- no matter how unpopular the occupation becomes with Americans and Iraqis.

    This illegal and immoral war will not end until Bush and Cheney are removed from power. That is the most important argument for their impeachment.

    Unfortunately, most Democrats still believe it is safer to let the electoral process run its course and win back the White House in 2008.

    This assumes, of course, that the 2008 election will be free of the vote stealing and other assorted chicanery we saw in 2000 and 2004. It also assumes that there will be no "October Surprise" in the fall of 2008 that could shift support to the Republicans.

    While the current Republican candidates for president are a motley and uninspiring lot, the Democrats shouldn't count on an easy victory in 2008. If the Democrats won't draft articles of impeachment for Bush and Cheney, they must pick up the pace on its investigations.

    The Democrats must conclusively put on the public record the extent of the incompetence, lies and corruption of the past six years. If those investigations follow through to their logical conclusion, it will become impossible not to impeach them.

    Booker redux (none / 0) (#9)
    by Sumner on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 02:05:40 AM EST
    Here is Pravda.ru Legal Editor, David R. Hoffman's take on things, the lead story, as of this writing.

    Here is Thomas Emmon Pisano's essay at The Seoul Times, South Korea, also the lead today.

    The Libby paradigm today, goes back to the pardon of Lt. Col. Oliver North - protect higher-ups at all costs. Lt. Col. Oliver North even ran for office, afterwards.

    The presidential commutation kept Mr. Libby out of prison. The actual pardon will likely come at the end of Bush's term, should Mr Bush dodge impeachment.

    Is this mandatory minimums mantra a case of administration, "do as I say, not as I do", or a failed, "I practice what I preach"?

    More of the same (none / 0) (#12)
    by atlanta lawyer on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 04:18:48 PM EST
    Convince the legislative branch that we need to take away all discretion from the "activist" members of the judicial branch, which, of course, leaves more and more power in the hands of the executive branch.  The judges have no choice but to give the minimums but the execs can reduce charges, dismiss charges, or just pardon their buddies if they want to.