When Bill Otis was nominated for the Sentencing Commission yesterday, it was a sure bet that his writings on this blog would be a subject of controversy sooner or later.  Sooner, it turns out.

Kristine Phillips has this post at the WaPo on the nomination.  She refers to Bill's writing "on a popular legal blog."  Can't mention us by name, I guess, but the name is in the URL linking the post, so it's all good.

As expected, Bill is accused of "racially tinged" remarks.  What's "racially tinged"?  Defending Judge Edith Jones for observing the unfortunate but undeniable demographic reality that crime rates are higher in some ethnic groups than others.

Part of knowing people is knowing the enemies they make.  Bill is attacked by Families Against Mandatory Minimums and For Increasing the Number of People Victimized by Crime. [I added that last part.]  FAMM is a reliable contrarian indicator, so their opposition is a recommendation.

In subjects this controversial, if nobody hates you, you aren't accomplishing anything.

Update:  Another criticism of Bill I am seeing in the news is that his views are supposedly behind the times.  The pendulum swings back and forth, so a view can be behind the times and ahead of the times at the same time.  The people saying Bill is a throwback to the 80s are themselves a throwback to the 60s.  They have forgotten the history of deluding ourselves into thinking we could magically rehabilitate all criminals, and their policies would condemn America to repeat that history.