One of the most watched cases making its way toward an argument before the Supreme Court this year is—or was, anyway— a case called Claiborne v. the U.S. Government.
For those hoping for some path out of the nightmare that determinate sentencing has become in this country, Claiborne had the real potential to make a fundamental change.
Here’s why: Claiborne v. the U.S asks the question: If a judge gives a sentence that is below the mandatory sentencing guidelines, can in still be considered “reasonable?” (Claiborne was given a 15-month prison sentence for a cocaine possession crime, even though the minimum Guideline range was a 37 months.)
Here’s a fuller explanation from some folks at Cornell Law school:
In 2003, Mario Claiborne pleaded guilty to two count of possessing and distributing cocaine base. After applying a safety valve to avoid a five-year minimum sentence and incorporating Claiborne’s clean record, the sentencing guidelines’ recommended range was 37-46 months in prison.
The district court judge, taking into account Claiborne’s lack of criminal history and apparent responsibility to his family, concluded that a 37-month sentence would be “throwing [Claiborne] away” and sentenced him to 15 months in prison plus three years of observation and drug counseling.
The government appealed, and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed, stating that sentences within the guidelines were presumed reasonable but that such an extreme departure from the guidelines must be based on extreme circumstances not found in this case.
In other words, the judge decided that while Mr. Claiborne deserved to be locked up, a year and three months plus some drug counseling and an extra three years of drug tests and the like, would best serve both Mr. Claiborne and the state. Whereas the three to four years of prison time that the mandatory minimum demanded was more destructive for all concerned than it was constructive—especially considering Claiborne had no criminal record and seemed to be a responsible family man.
Many of us had hoped that a victory in Claiborne would open the door to judicial discretion in general. If the Supremes had sided with the original judge in the case, a landmark precedent would be set that would, in turn, challenge state laws that, while well intentioned at the time, have resulted in destructively outsized sentences for low-level, non-violent felons along with calamitously over-full prisons as we are seeing in California.
Ideally, a victory in Claiborn would have then stimulated much needed legislative sentencing reform at a state level. California in particular is in desperate of a sentencing reform commission but Governor Arnold and state lawmakers, while admitting the urgent need, have been too damned cowardly timid to actually make the move.)
**********************************************************************
Unfortunately, dismayed Court watchers learned yesterday, Thursday, that Mario Claiborne had been shot dead in on on Wednesday in St. Louis, Missouri.
For hours , legal scholars and the like scrambed around to find out if there was any way to go forward with Claiborne with without Claiborne. For, a while, it appeared their might be.
Then, Thursday afternoon word came down that the answer was a definite NO. When Mario Claiborn died, so did the case.
To many, this may sound like inside baseball, legally speaking. But, in practical fact it’s a big deal.
Bummer.
Agggggggghhhhhhhh! If you want changes in the laws, go through the legislative branch rather than demand legislation from unelected judges with lifetime appointments and whose jobs are simply to apply the laws. The legislature knew what it was doing with that law, and the judge has no Constitutional right to second-guess them. All the judge should do is rule based on that law–period.
The only people who think that the Constitution should be a breathing document (and any laws) are those whose ideas are out of the mainstream and who want to circumvent the will of the voters and the majority of elected legislators. “Judicial discretion” is just another way of saying that you’ll hand-pick sympathetic judges to do your bidding.
This is like the recent (LINK) Supreme Court case where Lilly Ledbetter sued Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., claiming pay discrimination under EEOC. The response from that case should give an inidication of how Claiborne would have been settled…apply the law rather than make up law, unlike the minority position of ACLU trained, Clinton appointed, frothing at the mouth leftist Justice Ginsburg.
Follow the laws as written, or liberals should quit feigning outrage that the President violates the Constitution.
Oh good grief! Ledbetter was so wrongly decided that it will be a model for Con Law Scholars for years to come. Alito didn’t even bother to go into the legislative history but simply pulled “facts” out of his ass to come to the desired result. According to Alito you’ve got 180 days from the infraction to file. Didn’t discover the defect till after that period. Well, Tough nuggies! So all a company has to do is hide documents for six months and its a “Get out of Jail” free card. No wonder Ginsberg got angry!
This will be corrected by legislative action. Ted Kennedy is alreaady workin g on it and since he wrote the underlying bill he knows what the Congress meant.
And this shows what a difference an election makes (thanks Ralph!)and how little those tools who called Alito and Roberts “Moderates” because they don’t fulminate from the bench like Scalia know. If O’conner were still there I have no doubt that this case would have gone 5-4 the other way. But then she remembered that when she graduated from Stanford Law in the fifties – 2nd in her class – the only jobs offered to her were positions as a legal Secretary.
That is the world that our Southern Fried Friend from Atlanta wishes to return to and so we aare treated to an endless barrage of Angry White Man’s rants that women and other lesser breeds outside the law no longer know their place.
Sorry mack it don’t cut it anymore!
Woody, if we were applying “your” notion of law, blacks would still be enslaved, and women would still be pregnant, barefoot,and disenfranchised. Women and blacks would not have equal protection for admission to traditionally ‘male dominated’ fields, our GNP/GDP would be the poorer for it, and our standing among the OECD would be worse than it is.
There are times when you take me to the point where I no longer believe, that you believe, half of what you post. Don’t go there, Woody. Really, don’t go there. Alternative views, and different perspectives are fine, but they need to be rational. More jails isn’t the solution. And, if anyone should understand that, I would expect California would. So, it’s crazy to rail against their concerns about sentencing guidelines.
I’m about ready to devolve half of these issues to the states. You want to live in a backward world, so be it. The rest of us will move along without you. Damn, but there are times when you are so reactionary that you ought to be embalmed. Mummified. Entombed in a pyramid somewhere. You sure you’re not an example of the Night of the Living Dead. Zombie returned from the year 1500? Enough.
Judicial discretion
Venezuela’s top court has allowed the government to take control of private TV transmitters as it prepares to replace commercial with state-run TV.
Eminent domain power was transferred to the New London Development Corp. In a 5 to 4 decision, Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg … voted to expand the government’s right to seize property from citizens by declaring that such seizure was legal to facilitate private commercial development.
What Next – Freedom of Speech – unless it is hate speech. (Now Germany, Now Canada, ….next stop…..USA
Not sure what you’re saying here, Pokey, except that Kelo is a lousy decision.
I’ve always thought so too. (For likely the same reasons that you strongly object to it.) But read this commentary on the more nuanced purpose of the decision. It’s quite interesting, and suggests a whole different view that may very well be correct. Let me know what you think.
http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2006/02/kelo-decision-vindicated-conservatives.html
I’m amazed when people think that I’m out of line for wanting the Constitution followed rather than changed by judicial decree. Exactly where are the checks and balances when justices, appointed for life, exceed their authority? Without elaboration, your conclusions about where we would be without judicial overstepping is completely wrong.
Sometimes I jerk your chains, but I’m serious on this issue. The laws means what it says, not what some liberal wants it to say.
Thank goodness the “Equal Rights Amendment” was defeated, despite desperate cheating by Democrats to keep it alive. Otherwise, the courts would have run wild with that. It was bad enough to find a “right to privacy,” which is not mentioned in the Constitution, to justify murdering millions of babies.
Regarding misinterpretations for liberal causes, the next step is to try to shut down talk-radio with the “fairness doctrine.” Hugo Chavez would make a great Democrat.
Finally, legislation that Ted Kennedy is “working on” is simply wrong-headed pandering by a drunk, lady killer.
When judges create invent new rights out of thin air for government, presidents, cities or individuals because they FEEL that it is best, it endangers all our rights, because each right given to one entity is taken away from someone else.