Ashcroft seems to think that judges just aren't sentencing criminals harshly enough; he's now ordering US attorneys to report cases where the jurists use their own judgment rather than follow sentencing guidelines. What this essentially does is move the decisions to appeal from local prosecutors to DOJ. Even Rehnquist argued against the amendment allowing this when it was being debated.
In his memo to prosecutors, Ashcroft quoted approvingly from a May 5 speech by Rehnquist in which the chief justice said it was up to Congress to set sentencing policies.The memo did not quote another section of the same speech in which Rehnquist said that gathering information on sentencing practices could help Congress make decisions, but also "could amount to an unwarranted and ill-considered effort to intimidate individual judges in the performance of their judicial duties."
Somehow Ashcroft's selective argument surprises me not a whit.
More selective arguments: Treasury insists "not so," but Executive Order 13303 apparently indemnifies US oil companies from lawsuits while working in Iraq.
...lawyers for various advocacy organizations said the two-page executive order seemed to completely shield oil companies from liability — even if it could be proved that they had committed human rights violations, bribed officials or caused great environmental damage in the course of their Iraqi-related business.
I keep thinking I can't be further surprised by the venality, then I'm proven wrong once again.
Posted by Linkmeister at August 8, 2003 12:01 AMI had the same feeling about that Executive Order.
Is there no limits to his criminal nature?
Posted by: Scott at August 8, 2003 01:08 AM