Judge Reggie Walters has just issued an order asking the lawyers involved in the Libby case to provide their opinions about how Libby's probation / supervised release should be handled given that Libby's situation now seems to be well outside of anything contemplated under current law. And in the process, he's demonstrated he's got the dry sarcasm thing nailed. Go. Read. Behold.
SCOTUSBlog has more here.
Meanwhile, over at Slate, Harlan J Protass notes the very real impact Bush's decision may have on cases well beyond this specific one. An excerpt:
The specific bases Bush gave for the commutation are that the 30-month prison sentence was too harsh for Libby's crime, that he was a first-time offender who had a long history of public service, that his conviction had already damaged his career and reputation and caused his wife and young children to suffer, and that sentencing Judge Reggie Walton rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended that he consider "factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation." Defense attorneys would generally agree that these are all good reasons for reducing Libby's sentence—particularly in light of the nature of his offense. They would also agree that 30 months was too long in the first place to serve for the nonviolent crime of making false statements.
The Bush administration, however, has consistently maintained that at sentencing, judges should be precluded from thinking about precisely the sort of individual circumstances the president raised in lending a hand to Libby. Last month, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales proposed legislation that would prevent judges from relying on anything outside the federal sentencing guidelines as the basis for a sentence more lenient than the range that the guidelines provide for. Only the rarest of exceptions to this rule would be permitted....Pardons and sentence commutations are by definition tickets that are good for only one ride, special treatment for special defendants. And yet, one can't help asking, what of all those fears about disparity? In the weeks and months to come, defense attorneys across the country won't be able to resist tapping away at their keyboards, arguing that their clients' individual circumstances call for sentencing breaks, just like Libby's did. It probably won't work. But the administration's inconsistency is so glaring—and so perfectly illustrates the flaw of harsh and mandatory sentencing regimes—that to point it out to judges will be irresistible.
Like I said before, from now on, whenever conservatives start screeching about activist judges and the need for mandatory minimums, there's one very simple answer: Scooter Libby. Even if this case sets no new legal precedent, there is no doubt whatsoever that it will set a political one.
So let the debate over mandatory minimums begin. If Scooter's commutation leads this nation to walk back from its insanely rigid system of justice, this whole thing may end up doing more good than harm.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
