Bush is now a liberal.

Critics of the federal sentencing system have a long list of complaints. Sentences, they say, are too harsh.
1.Judges are allowed to take account of facts not proven to the jury.
2.The defendant’s positive contributions are ignored,
3.as is the collateral damage that imprisonment causes the families involved.

As Somer said: This is from a law and order guy. Liberal Defense Attorneys are licking their chops because of the reasoning he used. Again, you cant have it both ways.

Bush has set a precedent by using the above. This is what we expect from democratic liberals as other posters so aptly pointed out with slick william, etc...

This is really going to be funny when the 3 above are used by defense attorneys to ask judges to reduce the sentences of criminals charged with federal crimes.

[ShadowRoll]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Critics of the federal sentencing system have a long list of complaints. Sentences, they say, are too harsh.
1.Judges are allowed to take account of facts not proven to the jury.
2.The defendant’s positive contributions are ignored,
3.as is the collateral damage that imprisonment causes the families involved.

As Somer said: This is from a law and order guy. Liberal Defense Attorneys are licking their chops because of the reasoning he used. Again, you cant have it both ways.

Bush has set a precedent by using the above. This is what we expect from democratic liberals as other posters so aptly pointed out with slick william, etc...

This is really going to be funny when the 3 above are used by defense attorneys to ask judges to reduce the sentences of criminals charged with federal crimes.

Federal sentences are too harsh, almost draconian. But the truth is that Bush's actions will have no effect on other criminal cases in the federal system because such sentences are the result of strict sentencing guidelines which take into account many factors in a very exacting manner. It would make not a bit of difference if a defense attorney pointed out the justifications spewed out by the White House in defense of the president's use of his pardon power. A federal judge in any other criminal case will still be limited and directed by the guidelines, from which there can be little deviation.

And by the way, not all defense attorneys are liberals. Plus, an attorney, whether liberal or conservative, is going to do all he can, and make every reasonable argument he can on the behalf of his client. An attorney can't disregard any potentially effective argument just because he disagrees with it philosophically. If he did, he wouldn't be doing his job, which is to zealously defend his client.

[Mortimer]

SIT DOWN..




..Mr. Darden.

Originally Posted by mortyfeatherhands

SIT DOWN..




..Mr. Darden.

Ok Judge Morton you finally got me laughing.
That my boy, is funny.

ROR

[ShadowRoll]

Originally Posted by mortyfeatherhands

SIT DOWN..




..Mr. Darden.






sorry...



it's just that I got a thing against lawyers...



because of the counseling I've been ordered to undergo...




since that unfortunate incident at the playground.



hey...

maybe I can do my counseling here.





okay...


let me first announce...







that I'm coming out of the closet.





sorry Mortygirls...





I swing the other way.





oh yeah...


and I smell...








really, really bad...





but it's not my fault...






I lost my job at the Quickie-Mart and they turned off my water.











anything else???






oh yeah...












thud.

Well, certainly not surprising to the many of us that know and love you, Featherhead.

I can just see Morton pounding that gavel... by God the Judge has had enough dammit.

WTF is wrong with me. Im still laughing at this little scene.

[ShadowRoll]

Originally Posted by pgardn

I can just see Morton pounding that gavel... by God the Judge has had enough dammit.

WTF is wrong with me. Im still laughing at this little scene.

Yeah...okay.

Old Featherhead was pretty funny.

[Downthestretch55]

Pgardn,
Bush is NOT a liberal. He is a tyrant, decider, liar, and self made dictator.
He and his cabal have seriously damaged what once was a great nation.
Though this 4th of July, many will have their parades, fireworks, and beer, the words in the Declaration of independence will remain as equally forgotten as the words in the Constitution.
Bush took the action he did regarding Libby to protect his own administration, and to protect Libby from having to testify during the civil action that he faces regarding the outing of CIA covert agent Valerie Plame.
I won't be flying any flag today. This corrupt administration (by wrapping themselves within it, and defiling anyone that disagrees or challenges their absurdities) has taken every ounce of pride I once felt when I saw the red, white, and blue flapping in the wind. Now it seems that all that's true is the wind.
So, put away your flags.
http://www.progressive.org/media_mpzinn070106

[Mortimer]

am enjoying my day off from work. My friends are coming over in a bit and we are going to have a good time.
------------------

Running late.....but will be there.......please delay start of exotic dancers.

Originally Posted by ShadowRoll

Federal sentences are too harsh, almost draconian. But the truth is that Bush's actions will have no effect on other criminal cases in the federal system because such sentences are the result of strict sentencing guidelines which take into account many factors in a very exacting manner. It would make not a bit of difference if a defense attorney pointed out the justifications spewed out by the White House in defense of the president's use of his pardon power. A federal judge in any other criminal case will still be limited and directed by the guidelines, from which there can be little deviation.

And by the way, not all defense attorneys are liberals. Plus, an attorney, whether liberal or conservative, is going to do all he can, and make every reasonable argument he can on the behalf of his client. An attorney can't disregard any potentially effective argument just because he disagrees with it philosophically. If he did, he wouldn't be doing his job, which is to zealously defend his client.

Ellen Podgar disagrees with you but I understand what you are saying.

“By saying that the sentence was excessive, I wonder if he understood the ramifications of saying that,” said Ellen S. Podgor, who teaches criminal law at Stetson University in St. Petersburg, Fla. “This is opening up a can of worms about federal sentencing.”

And by the way, not all defense attorneys are liberals. And of course you are correct. I think I was making a fairly safe generalization.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Ellen Podgar disagrees with you but I understand what you are saying.

“By saying that the sentence was excessive, I wonder if he understood the ramifications of saying that,” said Ellen S. Podgor, who teaches criminal law at Stetson University in St. Petersburg, Fla. “This is opening up a can of worms about federal sentencing.”

And by the way, not all defense attorneys are liberals. And of course you are correct. I think I was making a fairly safe generalization.

The Ellen Podgar from the prestigous Stetson University......

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The Ellen Podgar from the prestigous Stetson University......

Hey they named a hat after that University. You know there is a Simon Frazier University or College in Canada so I see where you are headed.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Hey they named a hat after that University. You know there is a Simon Frazier University or College in Canada so I see where you are headed.

The Fraser Crane of Simon Frazier University...

[ShadowRoll]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Ellen Podgar disagrees with you but I understand what you are saying.

“By saying that the sentence was excessive, I wonder if he understood the ramifications of saying that,” said Ellen S. Podgor, who teaches criminal law at Stetson University in St. Petersburg, Fla. “This is opening up a can of worms about federal sentencing.”

And by the way, not all defense attorneys are liberals. And of course you are correct. I think I was making a fairly safe generalization.

The can of worms was opened a long time ago regarding the excessiveness of federal sentences. And I don't think Professor Podgor meant to imply that this will make much of a difference in the trial courts, at least not immediately. It might add ammunition, however, to appellate challenges to the sentencing guidelines.

Yeah, your probably right, in terms of "liberal defense attorney" being a safe generalization.