« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
"Excessive" Sentence Came from Bush Appointee
President Bush knew what he was getting in 2001 when he made Reggie B. Walton one of his first picks for a seat on the federal bench: a tough-on-crime judge with a reputation for handing down stiff sentences.......attorneys noted some irony in Bush's decision to override Walton.
"The party who appointed him is now unhappy with what he appointed him to do," said Scott L. Fredericksen, a defense attorney who served as a prosecutor under every president since Ronald Reagan.
Also noteworthy, defense attorneys said, was seeing the White House urge leniency just weeks after the Bush administration announced a tough new crime bill that would bar judges from going easy on criminals. They would be free to impose longer sentences, but not shorter ones.
Advertisement
Comments (25)
St. Augustine wrote on July 3, 2007 5:23 PM:Me thinks the decider-in-chief hath shown that he has no respect for the rule of law, much less for the people that he wanted to lead when he ran for the office of president.
Jake wrote on July 3, 2007 5:24 PM:BREAKING NEWS:
Justices Kennedy and O'Connor were appointed by GOP Presidents too.
Anonymous wrote on July 3, 2007 5:25 PM:"Taking care of criminals" = commutation
Bush takes care of the criminals:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/014992.php
Will DNC impeach? No, they're not playing by the same rules as Bush.
Jake wrote on July 3, 2007 5:32 PM:I wasn't aware the Constitution granted the DNC power to impeach in the first place?
mo2 wrote on July 3, 2007 5:43 PM:Ashcroft(R) was appointed by Bush(R).
Ashcroft recused himself and Comey(R) appointed Fitzgerald(R).
Judge Walton(R) was appointed in 2001 to his lifetime seat on the federal bench by President Bush.
The three judges who refused appeal were two (R) and one (D).
So 6 out of 7 people (or 7/8 including Bush)involved in deciding this case were Republicans, and yet some people have the audacity (and lack of mental robustness) to call this partisan activity by Democrats.
mo2 wrote on July 3, 2007 5:48 PM:Further, Judge Walton is no Bush hater. According to Wikki:
Judge Walton dismissed one of FBI whistle-blower Sibel Edmonds' lawsuits, after "sitting on the case with no activity for almost two years,"
Jake wrote on July 3, 2007 5:58 PM:Who had the audacity (and lack of mental robustness) to call the sentencing / denial of appeal "partisan activity by Democrats"?
Woodhall Hollow wrote on July 3, 2007 6:16 PM:I am wondering if Bush has lost some much needed good will on the Federal Bench with this latest little gambit.
Calling a sentence excessive is a direct slap in the face to the Judges who have ruled on this case.
Dan Putnam wrote on July 3, 2007 6:22 PM:Let's not forget too that Gonzales and Ashcroft have a pattern of insisting prosecutors go for the death penalty, even when the prosecutors disagree. Gee Whiz.
Jake too wrote on July 3, 2007 6:31 PM:Jake@5:58
What the fuck?
mo2 wrote on July 3, 2007 6:38 PM:"It is never proper for a court to take partisan political considerations into account when seeking to administer justice in an individual case." - Alan Dershowitz
jak1 wrote on July 3, 2007 6:48 PM:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/playing-politics-with-lib_b_54772.html
Oh I forgot to ask the question, What do we call Libby?
I mean he was convicted of obstructing justice. So is it safe to call him a traitor of the United States.
I heard it said that Clinton pardoned drug dealers. Well can we say Bush pardoned a traitor to the Union?
The only thing Bush thought was RIGHT about it was, it means Libby can take the fifth during a civil trial. A pardon doesn't give him that. So wouldn't that help the Wilsons? It shouldn't matter if Libby doesn't talk, he's been convicted therefore guilty. That is opposed to O.J. Simpson.
Jake wrote on July 3, 2007 6:53 PM:Jake too:
I was asking someone above WHO (because I haven't seen anyone) called the sentencing and/or denial of Libby's effort to remain out of jail pending appeals being exhausted a "partisan activity by Democrats"? Have you?
mo2 wrote on July 3, 2007 7:47 PM:You did on the 'Bush: 33 Months Reasonable for Rita, Not Libby' thread:
"Libby was being punished as a political vendetta"
Posted by: Jake
Josh G. wrote on July 3, 2007 8:47 PM:Date: July 3, 2007 6:05 PM
Let's face it - Dershowitz would never have written that article if Libby wasn't Jewish. Formerly a genuine civil libertarian, Dershowitz's actions these last several years have been a monument to ethnocentrism.
JNagarya wrote on July 4, 2007 6:31 AM:BREAKING NEWS:
Justices Kennedy and O'Connor were appointed by GOP Presidents too.
Posted by: Jake
Date: July 3, 2007 5:24 PM
Which has what relevance to this issue, aside from the fact that Kennedy joined the majority in upholding the Republican-instituted Federal sentencing guidelines, in a case specifically concerning the sentencing for perjury. If 33 months for a veteran of 25 years who committed perjury is acceptable to the SC, his sterling military reputation be damned, then 30 months for a chickenhawk for perjury and obstruction of justice is acceptable to the SC, his allegedly sterling reputation be damned*.
Alas, 30 months for the chickenhawk isn't acceptable to those who demand that everyone [except themselves] "support the troops".
*Not all that sterling: "Scooter" Libby was the lawyer who lobbied successfully for the (partial) pardon of target for Republican wrath Marc Rich.
Israel first!
JNagarya wrote on July 4, 2007 6:34 AM:I wasn't aware the Constitution granted the DNC power to impeach in the first place?
Posted by: Jake
Date: July 3, 2007 5:32 PM
I wasn't aware that the Constitution made the RNC an arm of the DOJ, and of the selection of US AGs, but I've been corrected on that point by the hard evidence discovered by Congressional investigation.
wlgriffi wrote on July 4, 2007 10:17 AM:Jake why don't you get your own blog?
career Fed wrote on July 4, 2007 10:42 AM:Now if we could just get our Party leaders to focus on a singular message out of this, instead of going off in 100 different directions...How does "The Bush administration support of a Traitor to our National Security is offensive" "Lying to the FBI is a crime. Lying to a Grand Jury is a crime. Period. Do you need anymore comments?" Focus...
nuncamas wrote on July 4, 2007 12:25 PM:From his body language and facial expressions while speaking about the commutation, it looked to me like B was acting under duress, compulsion even. Perhaps Shooter reminded him that "they" made him and "they" can break him at any moment he fails to deliver the goods. I think I saw fear, real fear, in him. Maybe not for the first time, but strikingly, and certainly not for the last.
SC is "profit"---like, what doth it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul.
JNagarya wrote on July 4, 2007 12:30 PM:Jake why don't you get your own blog?
Posted by: wlgriffi
Date: July 4, 2007 10:17 AM
Two reasons:
1. He hasn't anything original (or legitimate) to say; and,
2. There are already too many anti-American bloggers saying what he is saying, with equal lack of originality (and legitimacy).
Frebnedzo wrote on July 4, 2007 1:39 PM:http://www.tiny.cc/kHrXH
SPENCER ADAMS wrote on July 4, 2007 2:20 PM:From the Declaration of Independence:
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers. ... For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments.
I guess Jefferson was talking about more that one George.
Steve5117 wrote on July 4, 2007 2:30 PM:Virus alert if you go to
http://www.tiny.cc/kHrXH
Posted by: Frebnedzo
Date: July 4, 2007 1:39 PM
donviti wrote on July 5, 2007 10:52 AM:yes, but that new crime bill probably had a signing statement next to it, that exonerates anyone working in the White house