Results matching “first”

Recycling Bad Ideas

During his three-and-a-fraction terms as President, Franklin Roosevelt mostly steamrollered his political opponents and got most of what he wanted. Even one of the most formidable politicians in American history, though, lost one political battle badly and was sent running away with his tail between his legs. That was his notorious plan to "pack" the Supreme Court. FDR got no appointments during his first term and had a valid gripe against what we now call "judicial activism." Even so, a Congress controlled by his own party and mostly sympathetic to his views thought the end did not justify the means.

Fast forward eight decades. Reid Epstein and Ken Thomas report for the WSJ:

A few candidates are embracing ideas long seen as on the edge of liberal politics: abolishing the Electoral College and adding up to a half-dozen justices to the Supreme Court.
Given that it only takes 13 states to block a constitutional amendment and a lot more than 13 would have their influence diminished by abolishing the Electoral College, it's pretty safe to say that one is a non-starter.  (The jurisdiction most diminished by that change would be the District of Columbia, but it doesn't have a vote in constitutional amendments.)

Changing the number of justices requires only a simple statute. If the Democrats take full control in 2020, could they and would they take another stab at FDR's biggest flop? Stay tuned.

Do the crime, (maybe) pay the time

In California, 14- and 15-year-old psychopathic killers will no longer be "punished" as adults, condemned death row inmates will not be put to death, and sanctuary city policies prevent local law enforcement agencies from working with ICE to prohibit the release of violent criminal illegal aliens back into the communities. Did California law makers secretly convene and vote to make California the location of a reality show adaptation of the "Purge" movies?  (Quick movie summary: Once a year, Americans are given a 12-hour window in which anyone can commit any crime without facing any criminal charges.)

Daniel Marsh, who openly expressed his desire to kill, was 15 years old when he viciously stabbed and mutilated a randomly selected elderly couple as they slept in their Davis, California, home.  "By his own admission his main objective was to remain undetected and to become a serial Killer."  SB 1391, signed by former Governor Jerry Brown on Sept. 30, 2018, became law on January 1, 2019.  Under this new law, no 14 or 15 year old can ever be tried as an adult.  All crimes, including first-degree murder, committed by a 14 or 15 year old must be adjudicated in juvenile court.  The California juvenile justice system is designed to "rehabilitate" minors, not punish them.  The sanctions imposed upon a minor do not "include retribution."  (W&I Code §202(e)).  In fact, according to California law makers, "When the minor is no longer a ward of the juvenile court, the guidance he or she received should enable him or her to be a law-abiding and productive member of his or her family and the community." (W&I Code §202(b)). 

News Scan

Algorithms Solving Crime in NY:  A pattern-recognizing algorithm called Patternizr is being utilized by the NYPD to identify and apprehend criminals.  Michael Sisak of the Associated Press reports that the software, which analyzes incident reports in the department's database is much faster at spotting patterns than the standard process of staff sifting through paperwork looking for similar modus operandi to isolate specific offenders. The software took analytics experts two years to develop before it was rolled out in December of 2016.  In addition to the increased speed in detecting patterns, the algorithm reviews data for the entire city as opposed to manual analysis which is limited to precincts.  While the reporter suggests that this software is a valuable tool even though crime rates are "falling sharply," which is correct for the state, the FBI Preliminary Crime Report for 2018 showed increases in both violent and property crime in NYC over the first six months of last year.
Vern Pierson, District Attorney of El Dorado County, California, has this commentary in CalMatters.

Ronald Reagan emptied the psychiatric hospitals and Jerry Brown emptied the prisons, or so some people say. Although neither statement is completely true, there are elements of harsh reality in both. And they are connected.

Reagan and Brown, two of the most consequential governors ever in California, led the state during two of the most well intended but poorly executed movements in this state's history.

The first was the de-institutionalization of the mentally ill starting in the 1960's. The movement, started in Europe, was supported by President Kennedy and ultimately complicated by a U.S. Supreme Court opinion and civil liberty concerns over forced treatment.

The second in recent years was fueled by concerns about perceived mass incarceration, and the reality that our jails and prisons had become the de facto mental facilities.

The result: fewer inmates, and significant increases in homelessness and untreated mental illness.

I have witnessed this as a county prosecutor, deputy attorney general and El Dorado County District Attorney. As someone with more than 27 years in the pursuit of justice, I worry for the people on the streets, and for the future victims of crime.
The problem is nationwide, not limited to California. Yet the formerly golden state tends to be a trend setter, and it is worthwhile for folks elsewhere to pay attention to the consequences of what is happening here.

News Scan

FBI Preliminary Crime Report for 2018.  The Preliminary Crime Report for 2018 was released last week.  The report tracks violent and property crimes reported to police for U.S. cities with populations of 100,000 or more during the first six months of the year.  The report makes general findings for the nation as a whole, noting a decrease in violent crime in three of the nation's four regions, the Northeast, the Midwest, and the South, with a slight increase in the West. Property crimes were down nationally with the West experiencing the smallest decrease. In California, of the 72 cities included in the report, 42 (58%) had increased violent crime. Notably, in Los Angeles violent crime was slightly down (1.1%), San Francisco (0.2%), and Sacramento (4.2%), but was up 4.5% in San Diego. Cities with the largest increases in violent crime, included Sunnyvale (45%), Simi Valley (35.8), Freemont (34.6%), Fullerton (30.8), and El Cajon (30%).  Reported property crimes were down in the state. This is probably because the most commonly committed property crimes were downgraded from felonies to misdemeanors in 2014 by Proposition 47 which, according most to District Attorneys, Police Chiefs, and Sheriffs, makes them far less likely to be reported. A more thorough analysis of these new statistics will be reported in a few weeks.

A Disappointing Sequel in Moore v. Texas

In 1980, Bobby James Moore literally blew the head off James McCarble, 72, while robbing the supermarket where Mr. McCarble worked. Today the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Moore's death sentence for the second time.

The opinion relies on criteria for defining intellectual disability (formerly called mental retardation) established by two private organizations with agendas, the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and the American Psychiatric Association. For the reasons why this is a bad idea, see our brief in the first case. Science has little or nothing to do with it.

The first case was decided 5-3, with Justice Scalia's chair vacant and Chief Justice Roberts dissenting, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito. This time, the Chief concurs because he believes the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals did not properly apply the previous decision. It is binding precedent, even if he does not agree with it. Justice Alito writes the dissent joined by Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch.

There is no express indication of Justice Kavanaugh's position. "Per curiam" opinions are not expressly joined, though they express the position of a majority of the Court. It is disappointing not to see him join the dissent. Hopefully he merely has a position like Justice Roberts's, that he does not think the state court followed the precedent, without revisiting the issues decided there. He seems to be generally lying low after his brutal confirmation battle.

There are many bad ideas in constitutional law, but delegating to private, unaccountable, agenda-driven organizations the power to amend the Eighth Amendment and decide who can be executed for murder is among the worst. I had hoped that this case would be taken for full briefing and argument to reconsider that question, but the Court should take it up in another one soon.

Community Policing, Rightly Understood

George Kelling, a pioneer of community policing and a long-time friend and advisor to CJLF, has this article in the City Journal trying to clear up some misunderstandings about the "Broken Windows" approach.

Over the last quarter of a century, the United States has seen historic drops in crime--most famously in New York. These gains, once thought impossible, were achieved largely through dramatic innovations in policing, especially the adoption of an approach that stressed order maintenance in communities, data- and intelligence-gathering, and a problem-solving approach to crime and disorder.

In recent years, however, antipolice sentiment has risen in the U.S., sparked in part by a series of tragic, high-profile police-involved killings in major cities but also by the work of critics, mostly on the left but also on the libertarian right, who argue that targeted policing aimed at public disorder is coercive, hostile to community life, and often racist. These critics see such policing as the antithesis to what they call community policing. The arguments that have gained popular currency among police critics have essentially blinded them from seeing that the sort of aggressive policing that they object to can actually be an element of a community-policing model.

The increasingly widespread view that community policing and order-maintenance efforts are at odds represents a fundamental misunderstanding. In reality, the proactive policing that New York first undertook in its subway system under then-transit police chief William J. Bratton in the early 1990s--informed in significant part by Broken Windows theory--was a core element of community policing. Indeed, the very behaviors that residents wanted more heavily policed called for exactly the sort of approach that many modern community-policing advocates now decry.

Last Minute Filings

Holding claims until the eleventh hour before an execution has long been a favorite tactic of the capital defense bar. The tactic forces a court to choose between staying an execution beyond the scheduled date and letting it proceed despite a claim that the court cannot definitively rule out as unmeritorious in the available time.

The process of setting a date is cumbersome in many states. In some it requires the personal involvement of the governor, who may let final cases go unexecuted for years because of antipathy for the death penalty or simple inattention. Getting past a set date is a big deal, and the defense knows it.

The tactic was used in the first California execution of the modern era in 1992, that of Robert Alton Harris. The claim was a challenge to California's method of execution, which had been in use for many years. The Federal District Court in San Francisco granted a stay, and the Supreme Court vacated it because there was no reason it could not have been filed much earlier, giving ample time to consider it. Gomez v. United States Dist. Court for Northern Dist. of Cal., 503 U. S. 653, 654 (1992) (per curiam).

Yesterday, as noted in today's News Scan, the Supreme Court vacated a last-minute stay issued by the Eleventh Circuit for Alabama murderer Dominique Ray, citing the Gomez decision. (Gomez was California's corrections secretary at the time. Harris was the "real party in interest" in a writ that technically names the trial court as the respondent.)

Alabama has a perfectly reasonable policy that only Corrections employees can be present in the execution chamber. A prison-employed chaplain can be one of the employees. This can present a "disparate impact" problem if an inmate of a different faith wants a spiritual advisor of his own faith present in chamber. If that problem rises to a constitutional violation (an issue not yet resolved), the obvious solution would be to remove all clergy, employees or not, to the outside of the chamber, and have only the execution team inside. I expect that is how most states do it.

Anarchy May Be Hazardous to Your Health

Kelly Weill reports in the Daily Beast:

John Galton and his girlfriend Lily Forester had finally made it. On a March 2017 evening, the young American couple sat on their balcony above Acapulco, Mexico, counting their blessings. They'd recently moved into a big house on a mountainside and were eyeing an ambitious push into the artisanal bong business.

Galton and Forester were anarcho-capitalists who slipped U.S. drug charges worth 25 years in prison, they said in a YouTube video that night. They'd hopped the border and resettled in what Galton called one of the world's "pockets of freedom," a community billed as a libertarian paradise.

Almost two years later, Galton was murdered.
The subhead of the article is, "A bitcoin millionaire created a haven for 'anarcho-capitalists' in Mexico. When one of his followers was killed, he said it was just the cost of doing business."

Cal. Gov. Blocks Cop Killer's Parole

California's new Governor has taken the criminals' side against the victims on nearly every major criminal justice issue in recent years, so it was a pleasant surprise to learn that he blocked the parole of San Diego cop killer Jesus Cecena. Mark Saunders has this story for KGTV (ABC 10, San Diego).

Cecena was convicted of killing SDPD officer Archie Buggs in 1978, after shooting the 30-year-old officer four times during a traffic stop in Skyline before killing him with a final shot at point-blank range, according to the DA's office.
So why wasn't he sentenced to death? He was 17 at the time, and California law has precluded the death penalty for under-18 murderers throughout the modern era (i.e., post-Furman). Life without parole was available, though, so at least we can rest easy he will never be released, right?

No, the California Legislature provided for going back and resentencing those old LWOP cases, and Cecena's sentence was reduced to seven-to-life, making the 57-year-old eligible for Youthful Offender Parole. Really. And the Parole Board (or whatever that oft-renamed body is called this week) granted it.
Congress enacted the Crime Victims Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. §3771, in 2004, providing among other rights for victims of federal offenses "the right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay." Two years later, Congress amended §3771 to extend its protection to federal habeas corpus proceedings in state criminal cases. It did not occur to Congress to protect victims from unreasonable delay by the United States Supreme Court on certiorari review of state cases because that had never been a problem.

It is now.

AG Confirmation Hearing

CNN has this partial transcript of today's Senate Judiciary Confirmation for Attorney General nominee William Barr. Here is Senator Grassley's question on criminal justice "reform" (i.e., softening):

The Attorney General

The U.S. Supreme Court today brushed aside Thomas Goldstein's clever move to place the legitimacy of Matthew Whitaker as Acting Attorney General before the court through a normally routine motion to substitute a successor for a party appearing in his official capacity. In Michaels v. United States, No. 18-496, a petition challenging the federal ban on possession of firearms by convicted felons, Goldstein moved to substitute Rod Rosenstein, rather than Matthew Whitaker, for departed Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the nominal lead defendant.

No dice. In today's order list, the Court denied the motion and the certiorari petition without comment or noted dissent.

The question will likely be moot very soon. William Barr's confirmation hearing is tomorrow. His prepared remarks have been released. Sadie Gurman has this story in the WSJ. The part about the Mueller probe will be the main topic of conversation amongst the chattering classes. I am more interested in his priorities for DoJ generally.

First, we must continue the progress we have made on violent crime while, at the same time, recognizing the changes that have occurred since I last served as Attorney General. Then, the Nation was suffering from the highest violent crime rate in our history. My priority was to protect the public and attack those soaring crime rates by targeting chronic violent offenders and gangs. The crime rate has substantially fallen since 1992. The recently passed First Step Act, which I intend to diligently implement if confirmed, recognizes the progress we have made over the past three decades. Like Attorney General Sessions, I believe we must keep up the pressure on chronic, violent criminals. We cannot allow the progress we have made to be reversed. As Attorney General, I will continue to give priority to the joint efforts with our state and local partners to combat violent crime.
That sounds like the "law-and-order President" has indeed given us another law-and-order Attorney General. While he tips his hat to the Faux Pas Act, the main point is a determination to continue the progress against crime that the get-tough policy of his prior tenure helped bring about. "We cannot allow the progress we have made to be reversed." Bull's-eye. The acknowledgement to departed AG Sessions, a man unfairly tarred and largely right on the main issues, is a classy touch and a good sign.

It's a good thing former Majority Leader Harry Reid nuked the filibuster for executive nominations.

Return of the Nominations Blockade

The WSJ has this editorial with the above title.

The Senate confirmed 77 stalled nominees--a collection of ambassadors, U.S. attorneys or other non-controversial picks--by voice vote on Jan. 2. But thanks mostly to Democratic objections, the upper chamber returned to the White House 384 nominees it failed to confirm in the 115th Congress. That includes some 70 judicial nominees.

The White House will now have to renominate these men and women, assuming they haven't given up in frustration. Mark Greenblatt was nominated to be inspector general of the Ex-Im Bank in September 2017, 16 months ago. The Banking Committee approved him three months later; he's still waiting for a floor vote. Burlington Stores exec Janet Dhillon, the nominee to lead the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, has been waiting 18 months.
*      *      *
The White House was rightly criticized for its slow start with executive-branch nominations, but the main problem long ago became the systematic Democratic effort to prevent President Trump from filling out the government. First, Democrats take as much time as possible tying up nominees in committee. Once even non-controversial nominees get to the floor, Democrats then object to a quick voice-vote confirmation and demand a cloture vote that requires 30 hours of floor debate.

We at C&C are particularly interested in the much delayed nominations to the Sentencing Commission. I did not find any mention this year on the White House website, so evidently they have not been renominated yet.

Violence, Vagueness, and Avoidance

On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court waded once again into the murky waters of a vague definition of "crime of violence." The high court decided to review the case of United States v. Davis, No. 18-431.  The case involves 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), which imposes mandatory minimum sentences on persons who commit a "crime of violence or a drug trafficking crime" while using or carrying a firearm.  Paragraph (3) of that subdivision provides:

(3) For purposes of this subsection the term "crime of violence" means an offense that is a felony and--

(A) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or

(B) that by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.

The Supreme Court has long held that similar language in statutes relating to prior offenses refer to categories of offenses and not the defendant's actual conduct in committing the crime. This is called the "categorical approach." The Court was motivated in part by the practical difficulties of determining the particular facts of long-ago crimes. More recently, the Court has declared language such as subparagraph (B) "void for vagueness" in two prior offense statutes. See Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015); Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018).

As the Eleventh Circuit noted October 4 in Ovalles v. United States, No. 17-10172, if the categorical approach applies, then under Johnson and Dimaya "the clause is doomed."

But should the "categorical" interpretation of the statute be reconsidered in light of the principle that if two interpretations are plausible but only one is constitutional, courts should adopt the constitutional one? If so, is a "case-specific" interpretation of this statute plausible?

Beware the Next Step

On Monday, the WSJ published this op-ed by Barry Latzer, who is probably the foremost scholar on crime issues today.

But having passed the First Step Act, lawmakers should be cautious about the next step. Progressives believe that the U.S. overincarcerates and needs to cut back sharply on the number of people in jails and prisons. But the "mass incarceration" claim doesn't withstand much scrutiny.
*      *      *

What about overpunishment? Are penalties so harsh that American prisons are filled with men and women who are languishing there for decades because of some youthful indiscretion? That is the image the disincarceration movement wants to conjure up. But it is false.

First, 23% of felons convicted of violent crimes are sentenced to no incarceration whatever. Second, nearly 80% of state prison inmates are released before serving their full terms. If we measure punishment by actual time served, the picture is not disturbing. Some might argue that America has an underpunishment problem.

*      *      *
The risk in the second step of criminal-justice reform is that it goes too far. The justice system, flawed though it is, provides incentives to desist from crime. The weaker it gets, the greater the risk of a significant crime increase. That happened in the late 1960s: When the crime tsunami began, the system caved in. Police arrested fewer offenders, and courts imposed fewer and lighter punishments. That contributed to the 20th century's worst sustained violent-crime wave.
For more on the history of crime -- which we should neither forget nor repeat -- I highly recommend Professor Latzer's book, The Rise and Fall of Violent Crime in America.

News Scan

Senate Passes Sentence Reduction Bill:   The U.S. Senate passed a sweeping sentencing reduction bill 87-12 yesterday which should pass quickly in the House and go to the President's desk for signature, probably before the end of the year.  The Associated Press reports that the so-called First Step Act will cut sentences for drug dealers, cut enhancements for prior convictions, increase sentence reductions for "good behavior," give more discretion on sentencing to unelected federal judges and provide at least 2,600 crack dealers the opportunity for early release.  Proponents claim that leaving drug dealers in communities for rehabilitation will reduce crime and save millions in federal tax dollars.  California, which passed similar sentencing reductions seven years ago has had the exact opposite experience.  Violent crime in California increased for the third year in a row in 2017, and the state's corrections budget has increased by billions of dollars, even though the state's prison population dropped by roughly 30,000 inmates.  At a time when fatal drug overdoses are at historic levels, releasing drug dealers early and reducing the consequences for new convictions is suicidal.  When the President signs this bill, the drug cartels and domestic traffickers will be celebrating.  
As part of the "throw everything against the wall and see if anything sticks" strategy of attacking capital punishment, two notorious California murderers claimed that the state's method of execution statute violates the "delegation doctrine." That doctrine says that the legislative branch cannot delegate rule-making authority to executive agencies without adequate guidance. The doctrine was prominent in the fight between SCOTUS and FDR during the Great Depression, but it hasn't seen a lot of action since.

Like most states, California's law establishes the methods in broad terms and leaves the details to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The excessive delegation claim was rejected by the Superior Court of Alameda County in Oakland, and today it was rejected by the Court of Appeal for the First District in San Francisco.  The case is Sims v. Kernan, A151732.

If the argument had been accepted, it would have been an earthquake in the administrative state -- not a little shaker, not the Pretty Big One, but The Big One. If the legislature can't delegate this, vast amounts of what it has delegated would also fall.

The argument has been rejected in every state to consider it except Arkansas. Today's opinion quotes the USDC WD-Mo. characterizing the Arkansas case of Hobbs v. Jones as an "outlier." That's putting it diplomatically.

Congrats to DAG Jose Zelidon-Zepeda, who represented the State in this matter.

Faux Pas Act Up for Senate Vote

The bill titled the First Step Act is coming up for a vote in the Senate as early as the end of this week, Natalie Andrews reports for the WSJ. As I explained in this post in August, the version that passed the House would more appropriately have been called the Faux Pas Act. The Senate version is no better.

As explained in more detail in my July letter to Senator Cotton, the claim that this bill requires participation in "evidence-based" rehabilitation activities to earn credits is a shameless fraud. The definition of "evidence based" is so loose as to be wide open to junk science, and then on top of that the bill allows credits for "productive activities" in the alternative, which can be practically anything the Bureau of Prisons says.

The Senate version also includes some cutting back on mandatory sentencing provisions. I will leave commentary on that to others.

Paul Mirengoff has this post at PowerLine. See also Daniel Horowitz at Conservative Review.

From the WSJ story:

News Scan

CO Murderer Pleads Guilty to Avoid Death Sentence:  A Colorado man who murdered his pregnant wife and two daughters was sentenced to five life-without-parole terms Monday.  Emily Shapiro of ABC News reports that Chris Watts pleaded guilty to all charges related to the murders last August in exchange for an agreement that prosecutors would not seek the death penalty.  The state of Colorado will likely save millions in trial and appeals costs because of the plea deal.  According to a 2009 study by CJLF;  "The average county with a death penalty disposes of 18.9% of murder cases with a plea and a long sentence, compared to 5.0% in counties without a death penalty."   Watts reported his wife and daughters missing on August 13, and made a passionate televised plea for their return to reporters from the porch of his family's home.  Watts admitted the murderers after investigators caught him in several lies about events leading up to the victims' disappearance.  Days later his wife's body was found in a shallow grave and the girls' bodies were found in an oil pit where Watts worked.   

Push to Pass Sentence Reduction Bill:  Congress is pushing to pass a bi-partisan sentencing reform measure called the "First Step Act" that would allow the release of "4,000 hardened federal prisoners" immediately upon passage, according to Daniel Horowitz at the Conservative Review.  The proponents' current plan is to combine the early release provisions of the House bill and the front end sentence reductions of the Senate bill and get it passed before the end of the year.  As usual proponents claim that the measure will cut prison costs by sending thousands of drug-dealers to halfway-houses and home-confinement under "community supervision."  The Bureau of Prisons found that such alternatives cost two to three times as much per diem as prison.  While the author agrees that code review is necessary to cure unjust sentencing disparities, cutting sentences for drug dealers by 2/3s and releasing thousands of drug dealers, including armed dealers, early will increase crime at a time when drug overdoses and urban violence are at record levels.    

Released Illegal Charged With 3 Murders:  An illegal alien released from a New Jersey jail in defiance of an ICE detainer, has been charged with killing three people in Missouri.  Louis Casiano of Fox News reports that Luis Rodrigo Perez killed the three victims and wounded two others in shootings on November 1 and November 2.  An ICE detainer for Perez was ignored by New Jersey police when they released him from the Middlesex County Jail last February after serving two months for domestic violence.  Middlesex is a sanctuary county which refuses to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.  Missouri police determined that Perez killed two men in Springfield who were former roommates who had kicked him out.  The next day Perez shot and killed a 21-year-old woman who allegedly saw him kill the two men.   Middlesex County issued a statement claiming that it would honor detainer requests from ICE if the inmate has convictions for first- or second-degree offenses or is ordered deported by a federal judge.  Considering that illegals are protected from arrest on their immigration status in sanctuary jurisdictions and that the backlog for deportation hearings before a federal judge are several months, if the illegal shows up for the hearing, the county's claim that these deaths are the fault of ICE is groundless.  
era

There is a major political push going on to get law enforcement organizations to flip and support the badly drafted and ill-conceived legislation titled the "First Step Act," which I prefer to call the Faux Pas Act.  See this post.

There have been reports that the National Sheriffs' Association, the Major County Sheriffs Association, and the Major Cities Chiefs Association had "gone wobbly" on us, to borrow Margaret Thatcher's famous phrase. They have not.


These three organizations today issued this joint letter.

The current draft of the First Step legislation remains troubling to the leaders of law enforcement. Sheriffs are elected solely to protect our communities, and Police Chiefs have taken an oath to protect the public. We feel unless the changes recommended below are enacted, this legislation creates a high-risk path for dangerous criminals with gun crime histories to early release from prison. This amounts to a social experiment with the safety of our communities and the lives of Sheriffs, deputies and police officers in the balance. Please know that we did not come to this conclusion lightly. We have been working diligently with the Administration to correct these inequities. It is our hope the Senate will listen to the nation's elected Sheriffs and the Chiefs of Police of our nation's most populous cities.
*      *      *
In its current form, we oppose this legislation. However, if these changes can be made to address our concerns, we stand ready to work further with the Senate and the Administration.
Reports that the Fraternal Order of Police has gone wobbly are, unfortunately, true.

Justice Kavanaugh Settles In

Shannon Bream has this report for Fox News on the junior Justice's first days on the job.
In an impromptu statement October 27 on the Pittsburgh synagogue shootings, President Trump said:
I think one thing we should is we should do is stiffen up our laws in terms of the death penalty. When people do this, they should get the death penalty, and they shouldn't have to wait years and years. Now, the lawyers will get involved, and everybody is going to get involved, and we'll be 10 years down the line. And I think they should stiffen up laws, and I think they should very much bring the death penalty into vogue. Anybody that does a thing like this to innocent people that are in temple or in church -- we had so many incidents with churches -- they should be -- they should really suffer the ultimate price. They should pay the ultimate price. I've felt that way for a long time. Some people disagree with me. I can't imagine why. But this has to stop.

I've felt that way for a long time, too, Mr. President. Now what are you going to do about it? It's been almost two years since your election, and you haven't done anything at all yet, as far as I can tell.

News Scan

42 Weekend Shootings in Chicago:  Of the 42 people shot in Chicago last weekend, five died including a 16-year-old boy.  Morgan Greene and Elyssa Cherney of the Chicago Tribune report that the weekend leading up to Halloween was the second bloodiest of the year.  As usual the bulk of the shootings were in minority neighborhoods on the West and South sides of the city.  The first fatal attack occurred at 10:30 am Friday in West Garfield Park when a man walked up and shot two young men, killing one 20-year-old, and injuring a 17-year-old.  On Monday there were six more shootings, as reported by the Chicago Sun Times.  One shooting, which involved a man shot multiple times on the Dan Ryan Expressway, shut down the freeway during Monday's rush hour.  As of Monday night, none of that day's shooting victims had died.   

News Scan

Oregon Voters to Decide on Sanctuary State:  An Oregon ballot measure will allow voters to decide if the state will remain a sanctuary for illegal aliens.  Andrew Selsky of the Associated Press reports that Oregon became the nation's first sanctuary state to prevent racial profiling by law enforcement, but is was the Legislature, not voters which had made that decision.  Measure 105, which will be voted on next Tuesday, has divided law enforcement, with 16 county sheriffs supporting it and 20 opposing it.   A member of the opposition, Washington County Sheriff Pat Garrett, believes that voting down the law would "degrade community trust in law enforcement."     

Musical Circuit Justice Chairs

As usual when a new Justice joins the Supreme Court, the Court has issued a new order assigning Circuit Justices. Circuits D.C.* and 1-5 are unchanged, as are 8, 10, 11, and Fed.

Justice Kagan previously had the Sixth and Seventh, from Tennessee to Wisconsin. Now she gets the massive Ninth, which the Chief had taken temporarily while Justice Kennedy's chair was vacant.

Justice Sotomayor gets the Sixth in addition to her previously assigned Tenth. Justice Gorsuch keeps the Eighth, but I wouldn't be surprised to see him reassigned to his home Tenth a few years down the road, when all the cases he participated in have flushed out of the system.

Justice Kavanaugh is assigned the Seventh: Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin.

So why does any of this matter?

News Scan

$$$$ Plan to Reduce Inmate Overdoses:  The special master appointed by federal judges to oversee California's prison healthcare system is recommending that the state spend over $250 million in tax dollars to wean inmates of drug addiction.  AP writer Don Thompson reports that former law professor J. Clark Kelso is urging the state to give roughly 13,000 drug addicted inmates alternative drugs to reduce their craving for opioids.  Kelso estimates that 8 of every 10 CA prison inmates have an addiction problem.  Last year 39 inmates died of drug overdoses.  CJLF Legal Director Kent Scheidegger noted that perhaps stopping the flow of drugs into state prisons should be the first priority.

Filling USCA and USDC Vacancies

The headlines lately have been filled with the battle of the U.S. Supreme Court vacancy, but the vacancies on the circuit and district courts also matter. I have noted here more than once the excessive delay in filling vacancies on the notorious Ninth Circuit, in particular.

The WSJ has this editorial noting an agreement between the Senate's majority and minority leaders:

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced Thursday afternoon that the Senate would vote on the 15 nominees by the end of the evening. Three nominees are for appellate courts--one each for the Second, Third and Ninth Circuits. That would put the total of appellate judges confirmed at 29 in the last two years--a modern record for the first two years of a Presidency.
Meanwhile, back on the Left Coast, California's senators are deeply unhappy with President Trump's announcement of three nominees for the Ninth Circuit. Sarah Wire reports for the LAT:

Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris complained Thursday that they did not sign off on three White House nominees for open California seats on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and said they would oppose their confirmation in the Senate.

President Trump announced Wednesday evening he had nominated Assistant U.S. Atty. for the Southern District of California Patrick J. Bumatay, Los Angeles appellate attorney Daniel P. Collins and Los Angeles litigator Kenneth Kiyul Lee for California-based vacancies.

Poll on Softer Sentencing of Drug Traffickers

There is a two-step strategy to let more drug dealers out of prison. First, convince the people that prison overcrowding is caused by locking up large numbers of harmless, otherwise-law-abiding people for mere possession of marijuana for personal use. Second, take polls that ask people how they feel about tough sentencing for "non-violent drug offenders." When large majorities say they are against such toughness, having answered with personal-use defendants in mind, wave that around as public support for springing the dealers.

The "non-violent" part really grates on me. Can we assume that the leader of drug-dealing gang is "non-violent" merely because he has never been convicted of a violent offense? We know what happens to people who testify against gangsters.

The Foundation for Safeguarding Justice is an organization started by the National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys. The federal prosecutors know who they are really seeking prison sentences for, and they are justifiably horrified at proposals based on false premises. They commissioned a survey that asks people how they feel about going soft on drug traffickers rather than using the misleading term "non-violent drug offender."

It is not hard to guess the results of the change when the wording reflects the real issue of traffickers in "hard" drugs.

Live TV for SCOTUS Arguments?

The Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Justice Kavanaugh were disrupted by protesters.

The Senate floor vote on Justice Kavanaugh was disrupted by protesters.

Justice Kavanaugh's first day hearing oral arguments was not disrupted by protesters, as some had feared it might be.  See this post by Mark Walsh at SCOTUSblog.

Why the difference? Some might say that after the confirmation vote it no longer made a difference, but I do not believe that the disruptive protesters were actually there to make a difference in the outcome.

I think the difference is that the Senate proceedings were video-broadcast live and the Supreme Court proceedings were not.
  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99  

Monthly Archives