Crime Related Cases in the Supreme Court: Today, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two crime related cases, Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder (09-60), and Robertson v. U.S. ex rel Watson (08-6261). SCOTUSblog has posted transcripts of the arguments. Carachuri-Rosendo asks the Court whether a person convicted under state law for simple drug possession (a
federal misdemeanor) has been convicted of an "aggravated felony" under the Immigration and Naturalization Act, and is therefore unable to seek cancellation of removal from the Attorney General. Roberston asks whether an action for criminal contempt may constitutionally be brought in the name and pursuant to the
power of a private person, rather than in the name and pursuant to the
power of the United States. At Blog of Legal Times, Jordan Weissman reports that the "Justices Appear Skeptical of Private Contempt Prosecutions."
Reactions to Oral Arguments in Dillon v. United States: At Sentencing Law and Policy, Doug Berman comments that after reviewing Dillon's transcripts his gut "reaction is that, at many stages, certain Justices seemed to be distracted by concerns that suggest that they may not be especially sypathetic to Percy Dillon's fate." Dillon was convicted as part of a crack-dealing conspiracy. The strict guidelines for crack cases were rolled back and Dillon challenged his prison sentence. A federal district judge took four years off of Dillon's sentence in accordance with the new rules. Dillon appealed, arguing that the judge was not bound by the guidelines, and could go as low as he saw fit. During oral arguments yesterday, Justice Ginsburg suggested that it would not be "fair" for Dillon to get a chance to have his severe crack sentence impacted by Booker when "others whose sentence has become final cannot get into the court's door because they don't have the entering wedge" provided by the revision of the crack guidelines. Berman worries that because of the way Justice Ginsburg frames her concerns she might believe "Dillon should not get a 'special' chance to get a true post-Booker assessment of sentencing justice." Meanwhile, at Blog of Legal Times, Tony Mauro wonders whether questions raised by Justice Kennedy during yesterday's argument were criticizing the Obama administration's policy on commutations and pardons.
Omissions from Liu's Senate Questionnaire Response: Today, on NRO's Bench Memos, Ed Whalen reports on several omissions in Ninth Circuit nominee Goodwin Liu's Senate questionnaire response. In one post, Whalen comments that Liu's omissions "flesh[] out a remarkable pattern in which Liu's most incendiary remarks just happen to come in presentations that he's either entirely failed to inform the Senate ever took place or for which he's failed to provide readily available records." As an example Whalen points to remarks Liu made during a showcase panel on "The Legacy of Brown v. Board of Education." According to Whalen, Liu "expressly rejected the 'precept that judges are just supposed to figure out what the law is and not what it should be,' and he made crystal-clear that he would use his judicial office to advance his agenda."
Reactions to Oral Arguments in Dillon v. United States: At Sentencing Law and Policy, Doug Berman comments that after reviewing Dillon's transcripts his gut "reaction is that, at many stages, certain Justices seemed to be distracted by concerns that suggest that they may not be especially sypathetic to Percy Dillon's fate." Dillon was convicted as part of a crack-dealing conspiracy. The strict guidelines for crack cases were rolled back and Dillon challenged his prison sentence. A federal district judge took four years off of Dillon's sentence in accordance with the new rules. Dillon appealed, arguing that the judge was not bound by the guidelines, and could go as low as he saw fit. During oral arguments yesterday, Justice Ginsburg suggested that it would not be "fair" for Dillon to get a chance to have his severe crack sentence impacted by Booker when "others whose sentence has become final cannot get into the court's door because they don't have the entering wedge" provided by the revision of the crack guidelines. Berman worries that because of the way Justice Ginsburg frames her concerns she might believe "Dillon should not get a 'special' chance to get a true post-Booker assessment of sentencing justice." Meanwhile, at Blog of Legal Times, Tony Mauro wonders whether questions raised by Justice Kennedy during yesterday's argument were criticizing the Obama administration's policy on commutations and pardons.
Omissions from Liu's Senate Questionnaire Response: Today, on NRO's Bench Memos, Ed Whalen reports on several omissions in Ninth Circuit nominee Goodwin Liu's Senate questionnaire response. In one post, Whalen comments that Liu's omissions "flesh[] out a remarkable pattern in which Liu's most incendiary remarks just happen to come in presentations that he's either entirely failed to inform the Senate ever took place or for which he's failed to provide readily available records." As an example Whalen points to remarks Liu made during a showcase panel on "The Legacy of Brown v. Board of Education." According to Whalen, Liu "expressly rejected the 'precept that judges are just supposed to figure out what the law is and not what it should be,' and he made crystal-clear that he would use his judicial office to advance his agenda."
Leave a comment