home

Eric Holder Resigns, Continues Progressive Reforms

Attorney General Eric Holder is resigning. But he is still initiating long overdue policies that have immediate welcome effect.

Yesterday he issued a memo to U.S. attorneys telling them not to use recidivist charges (called 851 charges after the statute number) as a leverage tool or a hammer:

Holder sent a memo to U.S. attorneys Wednesday urging them not to use sentencing enhancements known as "851" tools to gain leverage in plea negotiations with defendants — in essence, threatening defendants into avoiding trial with huge amounts of prison time.

He is also in the process of issuing a memo telling prosecutors not to put appeal waivers for ineffective assistance of counsel in plea agreements (something many districts have banned as unconstitutional). He will issue new racial profiling guidelines that "will make clear that sexual orientation, ethnicity and religion are not legitimate bases for law enforcement." suspicion.

[More...]

In other Holder news, the Justice Department today issued support for a class action ACLU lawsuit set for trial next month that accuses New York of denying legal services to the poor.
The NYCLU claims that Gov. Cuomo and the state government haven’t adequately funded the program that provides defense lawyers for the poor. The NYCLU wants lighter attorney caseloads, better funding and state control over the county-run system.
< No Venue Change for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev | FBI Says It Has Identified ISIS Killer in Beheading Videos >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    If he wanted any real legacy (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Sep 25, 2014 at 02:02:44 PM EST
    he would have done more to get marijuana off Schedule 1.

    He has 4 months (none / 0) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 25, 2014 at 02:14:36 PM EST
    It's not really (none / 0) (#4)
    by jbindc on Thu Sep 25, 2014 at 02:21:06 PM EST
    solely his call, which has been discussed ad nauseam.

    Parent
    He and O are both leaving (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 25, 2014 at 02:27:43 PM EST
    they might see it as the perfect FU to the right wing.

    Parent
    Still not up to just them (none / 0) (#6)
    by jbindc on Thu Sep 25, 2014 at 02:32:48 PM EST
    Congress has to be involved.  Even if they could sidestep Congress, their are still lots of steps to accomplish this.

    What does it take to reschedule a drug?

    Congress could pass a law that changes or restricts a drug's schedule. But Congress mostly leaves scheduling to federal agencies like the DEA. One exception: Congress previously passed the Hillory J. Farias and Samantha Reid Date-Rape Prevention Act of 2000 and added gamma hydroxybutyric acid, a date rape drug, to the scheduling system.

    The White House can also initiate a review process that would look at the available evidence and potentially change a drug's schedule. The review includes several steps:

    1. The DEA, US Department of Health and Human Services, or a public petition initiate a review.
    2. The DEA requests HHS to review the medical and scientific evidence regarding a drug's schedule.
    3. HHS, through the FDA, evaluates the drug and its schedule through an analysis based on eight factors. Among the factors: a drug's potential for abuse, the scientific evidence for a drug's pharmacological effects, and the scientific evidence for a drug's medical use.
    4. HHS recommends a schedule based on the scientific evidence.
    5. The DEA conducts its own review, with the HHS's determination in mind, and sets the final schedule.

    Although very rigorous, this process has been successfully carried out in the past. For example, the DEA on August 21 announced it rescheduled hydrocodone combination products, or opioid-based prescription painkillers, from schedule 3 to schedule 2. "Almost 7 million Americans abuse controlled-substance prescription medications, including opioid painkillers, resulting in more deaths from prescription drug overdoses than auto accidents," DEA Administrator Michele Leonhart said in a statement. "Today's action recognizes that these products are some of the most addictive and potentially dangerous prescription medications available."

    Can a drug be unscheduled?

    It's possible, but it's much more difficult than simply rescheduling a drug.

    The big hurdle is international treaties. The US is party to international agreements that effectively require some drugs, including marijuana, to remain within the scheduling system.

    Proving that a drug has no potential for abuse is also very difficult, if not impossible. An American Scientist analysis, for instance, found even relatively safe marijuana has some potential for dependence; it's less addictive than heroin, meth, cocaine, nicotine, and alcohol, but more addictive than hallucinogens such as LSD, which doesn't cause much, if any, dependence.

    The two drugs not on the scheduling system -- alcohol and tobacco -- required a specific exemption in the Controlled Substances Act. Mark Kleiman, a drug policy expert at UCLA, argues both would be marked schedule 1 if they were evaluated today, since they're highly abused, addictive, detrimental to one's health and society, and even deadly.



    Parent
    I don't think Congress is doing (none / 0) (#8)
    by Anne on Thu Sep 25, 2014 at 03:12:58 PM EST
    diddly-squat for the remainder of the year - especially if it's something this administration supports.

    Sounds too much like actual work, and Congress seems to have an anaphylactic reaction to even the suggesting that they, you know, do their jobs.

    It's like they don't even care enough to pretend anymore.

    Parent

    And with the Republicans in charge in the House (none / 0) (#9)
    by jbindc on Thu Sep 25, 2014 at 03:14:13 PM EST
    (and probably soon to be the Senate as well), I don't see this issue going any further any time soon.

    Parent
    Almost everything I've read, or, (none / 0) (#10)
    by NYShooter on Thu Sep 25, 2014 at 03:30:00 PM EST
    seen on TV suggests the new, presumably, Democratic President, will be better off with a wholly Republican Congress. I think they're saying that even with holding one House of Congress they've been able to stymy anything this Presidents been trying to accomplish.

    While I'm not completely sure what the pundits mean by that, I believe they're saying it would, most probably, result in a Democratic Congress for the President's second term.

    Parent

    It would be better for PR purposes (none / 0) (#11)
    by jbindc on Thu Sep 25, 2014 at 03:36:03 PM EST
    But for actually implementing policy, that may be a different story.

    Parent
    I think the idea is (none / 0) (#12)
    by CST on Thu Sep 25, 2014 at 03:38:44 PM EST
    that it would be so terrible that eventually they'll be replaced with Democrats and then policy would actually be implemented.

    Not sure I buy it, but that seems to be what the theory is.

    Parent

    The only (none / 0) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 25, 2014 at 05:54:35 PM EST
    benefit I can see from having a GOP senate is that crackpot legislation is going to make it through the senate and die there but apparently the GOP doesn't really care about that anyway. Their main goal is bottle neck up the judiciary. They really don't care if anything gets done.

    Of course, come 2016 the GOP is going to get a major shellacking should they continue down this road. But they laid in the bed with the fleas so now they are going to have to get up with them.

    Parent

    I hope so (none / 0) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 25, 2014 at 06:07:46 PM EST
    You're GOP outcomes lens usually