Isn't it possible (likely?) that Keynote speak Rand Paul will discuss sentencing reform? Same for Mike Lee? The agenda you have linked does not assert or even suggest that some speaker will not discuss sentencing reform.

Even more importantly for purposes of this discussion, can you point to a single GOP member elected for the first time in the last decade who is a vocal opponent of sentencing reforms? Have any GOP members (young or old) expressly spoken against the dramatic and consequential sentencing reforms that the US Sentencing Commission has made/proposed to reduce the severity of the sentencing guidelines?

You seem, Bill, to be stretching hard to suggest that sentencing reform is still not an interest of important GOP members. But nearly all the GOP folks talking up a run for Prez in 2016 seem to favor sentencing reform, and a few (like Rand Paul and Rick Perry) are especially vocal in support of reform. I am not yet ready to call sentencing reform a mainstream GOP position yet, but it does seem to be supported by most GOP members under 60. Perhaps there are still too many old folks setting the agenda at Heritage.

Seems we are talking past each other, Bill. I do not dispute that the old guard GOP who now control the power levels in Congress now do not seem to be fans of the SSA. But they also do not seem eager to prevent the USSC from reducing the severity of the guidelines --- I suspect the recent proposed fraud amendments were discussed on the hill by USSC reps --- and the GOP dominated house last month passed legislation to preclude DOJ from spending money going after certain federal pot criminals. Thus, I think the GOP continues to warm to sentencing reform efforts, even the old guard.

I do not think the SSA will become law in this Congress especially given 81-year-old Senator Grassley's opposition to it. But I do think various other forms of sentence reform could move in the Congress especially if (when?) some of the smarter political folks inside the GOP figure out what Senator Paul and Gov Perry understand: for younger and minority voters, the GOP hurts its brand badly and undermines its professed interest in smaller government by continuing to be extreme drug warriors.

I do not have a head-count as to how many GOP members under 60 support sentencing reform, but every prominent GOP member under 60 to speak recently on this issue --- e.g., Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Raul Laborator, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan --- has advocated for sentencing reform. I would be grateful if you could help me do a head-count on this front, but let's just start with the question I posed to you initially:

Can you point to "a single GOP member elected for the first time in the last decade who is a vocal opponent of sentencing reforms"?

Doug, we've seen what sentencing reform has done in California. Crimes that happened that shouldn't have.

As I have noted elsewhere, federalist, California is a lesson in why legislatures should be more proactive rather than reactive with sentencing reform. Plata as well as recent propositions in CA show that if legislatures do not get moving on "smart" reforms, courts and the people can and will order less orderly reform.

In addition, overall violent crime is down in CA so it is not even that clear that CA is a lesson in what not to do. And, of course, I could point to any and every soldier death and say no war is good policy because harms happened that shouldn't.

But substantive debate aside, at issue here is whether the GOP is warming to sentencing reform. I believe it is, especially among those elected for the first time in the last decade. Do you disagree?

Doug --

I think your conclusions are wrong because your premises are wrong.

1. California has had four years now to get it together after Plata, but is still a mess. Sure, violent crime went down in the last year, but only as imprisonment went back up. Seems like those fellows out on early release aren't really the "low level, non-serious" folks we were solemnly promised. So they got revoked (after some innocent person paid the price for their early release) and are now back in the slammer.

2. Even if and when crime goes back down this year or next, that will not prove or come close to proving that releasing criminals is a good idea. Incarceration is an important part (about 25%) of the reason crime goes down, and 75% is due to other factors (e.g., more police and police targeting like stop-and-frisk). When you keep the 75% and cut back on the 25%, what that is most likely to produce is continued crime reduction, but at a slower rate. And that's what's been happening.

3. The GOP is "warming" to earlier release of criminals (I occasionally decline to use the nicey-sounding code, "sentencing reform") in the same sense that the Democrats are "warming" to entitlement reform. That is, you hear an occasional speech here and an occasional speech there (especially before politically correct audiences), but as for ACTION -- well, check back in about 3000 years.

We'll know that libertarianism has taken over the GOP when it nominates Rand Paul. Again, I offer you a wager: I'll bet you $100 to $10 that Paul does NOT get the nomination.

Yes? No?

Still seeking an answer, Bill, to whether you can point to any under 60 GOP members speaking out against sentencing reform. I am coming to the conclusion you cannot.

Another correct conclusion is that I have not attempted to, and am not going to attempt to, look up each of the 300 Republican members of Congress, check their ages, and further check their collective zillions of statements to see if there are some on proposals to release federal felons early, or effectively ban mandatory minimums (i.e., "sentencing reform").

A third correct conclusion is that it would be silly for me to make such an attempt. By definition, Congressional "sentencing reform" is a CHANGE in the law. In the present circumstances -- which are, as I believe you have acknowledged, that Congress is highly unlikely to undertake "reform" -- there is no particular reason for Congressmen satisfied with the status quo TO SAY ANYTHING AT ALL.

To the contrary, the burden is to show support for CHANGE, not to show support for law that will remain as is WITHOUT change.

Since you're the one urging this change, the burden is on you to come up with a list of supporters, not on me to come up with a list of opponents. But I won't ask you to, because (1) I don't give you homework assignments; (2) you manage your time as you want, not as anyone else wants; and (3) if you were crazy enough to try, you wouldn't be able to come up with anything even resembling a majority of Congressmen and Senators under age 60 who have spoken out for "sentencing reform."

Harry Reid knew the votes weren't there, which is why he broke his promise to Durbin to bring the SSA to the floor. Do you think Reid maybe can get a better count than you or I could, even if either of us was inclined to squander time on such an effort?

P.S. Why do you suddenly want to discriminate against people over 60, or imply that they are inferior? Are they less intelligent than younger people? Do they know less? Is immaturity now to be preferred to experience?

P.P.S. In a few years, many of those now under 60 will be OVER 60. Someone told me that that's how time works. Will they then be disqualified from having an opinion?

Rep. George Holding of North Carolina--he's under 60. He recently introduced a bill to reverse the USSC's decision to reduce the drug guidelines. Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio--he's under 60. He opposed retroactivity of the FSA. Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina--he's under 60. He also opposed retroactivity of the FSA. I am sure there are more.

Bill, I find comical that you turn my emphasis on the significance of age in the sentencing reform debate to be a suggestion I "want to discriminate against people over 60." You sound now just like some of the left (who you often lampoon) turning a mention of race into a charge of racism. I knew you had big-govt tendencies, but I am amused by how quickly you go to the classic lefty playbook in the age context.

Back to the point, at issue is not really age but experience. Those over 60 have more first-hand experience with the perceived harms of too much federal sentencing leniency and thus would generally rather have our sentencing policies err by being too "tough." Those under 60 have more first-hand experience with the perceived harms of too much federal sentencing severity and thus they would rather have our sentencing policies err by being too "smart."

I agree that a head-count is not a good use of our time, though maybe some enterprising journalist will take up this cause. In the meantime, I will continue to note how may significant younger/up-and-coming GOP folks, especially those talking up a run at national office, are on-record in support of sentencing reforms: e.g., Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Jeff Flake, Raul Labrador, Mike Lee, Rand Paul, Rick Perry, Paul Ryan.

Critically, Bill, I am not trying to give you homework. Rather, I respect and envy your knowledge and access to the most powerful GOP folks inside the Beltway, so I have long assumed you know who are GOP folks actively working against sentencing reform. The fact you cannot name any younger GOP against reforms suggests to me that, while many GOP members may in fact be happy with the status quo, few younger GOP members think it is in their political best interest to be vocal in their opposition to the types of reforms being advocated by the likes of GOP Prez hopefuls like Chris Christie, Rand Paul, Rick Perry and Paul Ryan.

Doug --

1. Starting off with, "I find comical that you..." is a decently good way to encourage me to just scroll down the page. An opening like that is not designed to advance the ball.

You say my remarks on age make me sound like the Lefties among your commenters who turn any mention of race into a charge of racism. I'm happy you noticed this phenomenon. But I didn't know you had any problem with it, since now -- on this blog, not your own -- is the first time I've seen you criticize it.

2. Shrewd man that you are, you put the argument in a way good enough to be plausible, but not good enough to be right. Thus:

"Back to the point, at issue is not really age but experience. Those over 60 have more first-hand experience with the perceived harms of too much federal sentencing leniency and thus would generally rather have our sentencing policies err by being too "tough."

(a) The harms were not merely "perceived." With the massive spike in the amount of crime, they were all too real, as I'm sure even a young man like you knows.

(b) I would prefer to get sentences right, but, sure, given that error is inevitable in ANY system, I think error should be borne by those who make criminal choices rather than by their victims. Do you disagree?

3. "Those under 60 have more first-hand experience with the perceived harms of too much federal sentencing severity and thus they would rather have our sentencing policies err by being too 'smart.'"

It is human nature, especially among the young, to take good things for granted. Thus, you are largely correct in suggesting that younger people take for granted the enormous and liberating benefits of the present low crime rate their elders labored to give them.

But taking it for granted is a big mistake, because, in fact, it's not just "granted." It was EARNED, by a number of things your allies complain about relentlessly: more incarceration, more police, better deployment of the police, and better weapons for them (I only wish the police in Paris last week had had more military-style weapons).

4. "Critically, Bill, I am not trying to give you homework. Rather, I respect and envy your knowledge and access to the most powerful GOP folks inside the Beltway, so I have long assumed you know who are GOP folks actively working against sentencing reform."

I think you're missing a point, and I speak here in all sincerity: There are issues that ring the bell with liberals/libertarians that simply don't attract interest, or attract very little interest, from standard conservatives, of whom I am (roughly) one (along with, for example, Scott Walker, Bobby Jindahl, McConnell, Sessions, Grassley, Goodlatte, Mukasey, and many more).

In the present political setting, sentencing reform has become one of the lesser-tier issues. The reason is not that sentencing reform is not IN THEORY quite important. The reason is that, with conservatives now in charge of both Houses of Congress, it's not going anywhere legislatively. So we need to turn our attention elsewhere (like undertaking an offensive war against Jihadism rather than treating it as a legal problem; or like the heroin epidemic that even Eric Holder has noticed; or like the growing intimidation of free speech, not just in Paris, but on college campuses across America).

Couple of quick follow-ups, Bill:

1. I always make an effort on my blog and elsewhere, Bill, to try to clarify misunderstandings or correct any questionable assertions about MY views and comments. But I very rarely intervene when there are misunderstandings or questionable assertions about OTHERS' views and comments. Indeed, I am pretty sure I always responded on my blog if/whenever anyone asserts my comments are racist, but not when one commentor attacks the comments of another.

2. I do generally favor victims over criminals when tilting our CJ system (although arguably the Framers did not given all the special rules protecting criminal defendants in the Bill of Rights). But when discussing extreme federal marijuana sentences for criminals like Chris Williams (still serving 5 years despite compliance with state laws) or Weldon Angelos (still serving 55 years for 3 small pot deals), it is hard to see who the victims really are and easy to see how costly and troublesome the "risk of error" can be in the application of of some federal sentencing laws.

3. I continued to wonder how we have "EARNED" less crime, and I continue to want to experiment with whether we can continue to have more judicial sentencing discretion, less federal incarceration and less crime as we have seen over the last 10 years.

4. I do not dispute that sentencing reform is a "lesser-tier issue" for all parts of the GOP as well as all parts of the Democratic Party, too. In part because sentencing reform is complicated and concerns mostly politically marginalized individuals (both as defendants and victims), sentencing reform is never a front-line political concern for anyone in power. That ensuring reality is, in many ways, what makes it so notable and remarkable that so many important GOP voices are talking about this issue. (Indeed, it is telling and not surprising that Rand Paul and Chris Christie have said MUCH more about sentencing reform than Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden. The forward-looking GOP realize this could be a good issue for them politically going into 2016, especially when the folks you mention will block any real action; in contrast, the old-school Dems still think they cannot politically afford to even talk about these issues.)

Doug stated: "That ensuring reality is, in many ways, what makes it so notable and remarkable that so many important GOP voices are talking about this issue. (Indeed, it is telling and not surprising that Rand Paul and Chris Christie have said MUCH more about sentencing reform than Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden. The forward-looking GOP realize this could be a good issue for them politically going into 2016, especially when the folks you mention will block any real action; in contrast, the old-school Dems still think they cannot politically afford to even talk about these issues.)"

I am three hours from Columbus. I will bet you a steak dinner with drinks and dessert, at the restaurant of your choice, that sentencing reform will again prove to be a non-issue in the 2016 elections and coming Congress, even for the "forward looking GOP" candidates. There will be no grandstanding filibusters from Paul and Cruz bringing light to this issue.

BTW, I love such Progressive phrasing such as "forward looking" coming from a "Libertarian." Next, you will tell Bill to "get on the right side of history."