(Update) Let the “Libby Motions” Roll!
By Mona
.
Something very, very good may actually result from Bush’s commutation of almost “political prisoner” Scooter Libby; the points Bush made in his defense of the commutation track precisely those adopted not only by criminal defense attorneys in federal district courts all over the nation, but also those of groups like Families Against Mandatory Minimums. FAMM and others now stand an excellent shot at galvanizing long over-due public attention on both the extremely harsh and destructive mandatory minimum sentencing scheme the Bush Administration fights tooth and nail for, as well as the justice of prison sentences at all for non-violent drug crimes.
.
As the NYT reports — in an article titled Commuting Prison Term Is Implicit Critique of Sentencing Standards — we may now see a cavalcade of “Libby Motions” for sentencing reductions citing Bush’s language verbatim, and it is going to be much more difficult to support the draconian mandatory minimum scheme the Bush Administration has been so steadfast in defending:
Critics of the federal sentencing system have a long list of complaints. Sentences, they say, are too harsh. Judges are allowed to take account of facts not proven to the jury. The defendant’s positive contributions are ignored, as is the collateral damage that imprisonment causes the families involved..On Monday, President Bush made use of every element of that critique in a detailed statement setting out his reasons for commuting Mr. Libby’s sentence.
At the Sentencing Law and Policy blog (and do read the entire excellent post), they reproduce an email declaring:
I do think [the President’s statement] will be thrown in the face of every line assistant arguing for a Guidelines sentence in every district court in the country, and I would expect it to carry weight with some judges. I suspect the President’s action is very demoralizing to A.U.S.A.’s around the country for this reason. These are folks who’ve backed the President’s tough sentencing policy in the face of compelling and heart-rending arguments. Now the President makes the same argument they’ve been standing up to!
(Click that FAMM link above to see some of those “heart-rending” cases; destroyed families, non-violent mothers getting 19 years for selling meth just to feed their own addictions and hardly making enough more to pay rent.)
.
Would it not be sweet if Bush’s decision to save Scooter from the *cough* Gulag *cough* undermines the authoritarians’ excessive and extreme punishment schemes, and thereby serves the causes of justice and mercy?
********
UPDATE: Pete Guither puts it in sickening perspective:
Scooter Libby is free. Richard Paey is in prison.
.
President Bush said that Libby’s 2 1/2 year sentence was “excessive.”
.Richard Paey’s sentence is 25 years.
And if you don’t know who Richard Paey is or why he is in prison, well, read the dang link. I’ll bet he and his family are a bit put out at an “excessive” sentence, too. But then, the disabled Paey is Not a Friend of George. If you are a Floridian, click the link and help Paey’s good crack at clemency.
Comment by BruceB —
July 4, 2007 @ 12:09 pm
It would be sweet, but since when is consistency a quality rewarded by Bush administration-favored judges?
Comment by Mona —
July 4, 2007 @ 12:21 pm
Libby’s sentencing Judge, Reggie Walton, is a Bush appointee. Two of the D.C. appellate panel that upheld the denial of bail pending appeal are Republican Federalist Society members. Michael Luttig, arch-conservative one-time-SCOTUS hopeful, quit the 4th Cir. shortly after spanking the Bush Administration in the Padilla matter.
But more to the point, Congress can change the sentencing guidelines. This gives cover to the “liberal” Dems to ignore Gonzo and taunts that they are “soft on crime.” After all, they are just taking the Bush position.
Comment by bryan —
July 4, 2007 @ 1:39 pm
I would suppose Walton for one would start releasing people with statements along the line that this or that person deserves the same level of mercy as Libby.
Comment by Gsnorgathon —
July 4, 2007 @ 1:51 pm
The problem with taking the Bush position is that it’s currently favored by a minority. Not to mention that just about everyone with two neurons to form a synapse knows that the Bush position is only for pro-Bush criminals.
Comment by Mona —
July 4, 2007 @ 1:59 pm
I think you’d be surprised. It certainly is not favored by the defense bar, and not by groups like FAMM. Most importantly, a great many judges — including some conservative ones — are appalled at being denied discretion to treat individual cases differently.
The only decent argument in favor of inflexible sentencing guidelines was that they were supposed to keep judges from being softer on pale-skinned folks than on dark-skinned ones. It hasn’t quite worked out that way, and the dark-skinned people still disproportionately suffer under the yoke of this sadistic, life- and family-destroying system.
Comment by Detlef —
July 4, 2007 @ 2:00 pm
No, no Gsnorgathon!
Bush is just proving that he is a “compassionate conservative”. Compassionate to conservatives. Especially to ones close to his administration.
Comment by BruceB —
July 4, 2007 @ 2:51 pm
Mona, good correction, and particularly when I’m feeling depressed, I gotta remember to set bounds on it. Some fine folks have come into office in recent years, and others been retained and promoted. I’m down at the Supreme Court in particular right now, and in a continuing way at the general harm done to the Justice Department with the purges and loyalty testing and all, but…even a dark picture has highlights. I am en-nudged.