Is this because you know I'm about to bring up Trumps travel ban being denied by the court?

All activist judges feel their reasoning for it is prudent. Why are you ok with this judge blatantly ignoring the law of the land?

It sounds like you are saying that judges should sentence based on their opinion of whether laws are good or bad and not based the actual law. Is this correct?

Wait a minute. Are you saying that the mandatory sentencing in this case wasn't actually mandatory?

I'd have to look at the version of the statute in 2015 when the original sentence was handed down, because some laws are called "minimums" or even "mandatory" but they are in fact "guidelines". And Booker (and Blakely, in a sense) paint actual mandatory sentencing as unconstitutional.

Also, in his decision, the trial judge used the term "cruel and unusual", he was doing his duty of "judicial review". Do you not think that judges should be able to review the constitutionality of laws absent binding precedent, BRick?

No. Follow the law as written and then have the constitutionality of the topic of mandatory minimums be handled by those at the state or federal level that deal with those kind of things.

Wait, so the lowest level District Court judge shouldn't have been able to block Trump's immigration EO on constitutional grounds?

Really, all judges deal with those things, BRick. There is no "minimum level for judicial review" hierarchy, that's why we have stare decisis.

It's a temporary restraining order which is different, and less stringent then a binding decision.
They have to take it into account but they can't declare something unconstitutional like mandatory minimums. If they do they are being an activist judge.

It's a temporary restraining order which is different, and less stringent then a binding decision.

They have to take it into account but they can't declare something unconstitutional like mandatory minimums. If they do they are being an activist judge.

A TRO is the step just below the state-sponsored servitude of positive enforcement, you know that right?



You don't fully understand how our court system works. This is how court cases start their way through the system: Lower court makes a ruling and pins it on a constitutional issue, one party appeals to a circuit court who makes a ruling on that constitutional issue, and on and on, which is exactly what happened here.

The trial judge made a decision and pinned it to a constitutional issue, the appellate court reviewed that decision on the constitutional issue given the relevant facts and overruled. If it went further, the California Supreme Court would make a ruling on the constitutional issue raised by the lower court and ruled upon by the appellate court.

That makes you a big fan of activist judges since that is the same thing they do.

So then why do you support a guy who completely ignored the MANDATORY(as in, not optional) sentencing guidelines?

I am certain there is precedent for mandatory sentencing even if the concept may be a bad one.

You mean other than the Supreme Court declaring the federal version of it unconstitutional?

Link?

We here turn to the second question presented, a question that concerns the remedy. We must decide whether or to what extent, “as a matter of severability analysis,” the Guidelines “as a whole” are “inapplicable … such that the sentencing court must exercise its discretion to sentence the defendant within the maximum and minimum set by statute for the offense of conviction.” Pet. for Cert. in No. 04–104, p. I.

We answer the question of remedy by finding the provision of the federal sentencing statute that makes the Guidelines mandatory, 18 U. S. C. A. §3553(b)(1) (Supp. 2004), incompatible with today’s constitutional holding. We conclude that this provision must be severed and excised, as must one other statutory section, §3742(e) (main ed. and Supp. 2004), which depends upon the Guidelines’ mandatory nature. So modified, the Federal Sentencing Act, see Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, as amended, 18 U. S. C. §3551 et seq., 28 U. S. C. §991 et seq., makes the Guidelines effectively advisory. It requires a sentencing court to consider Guidelines ranges, see 18 U. S. C. A. §3553(a)(4) (Supp. 2004), but it permits the court to tailor the sentence in light of other statutory concerns as well, see §3553(a) (Supp. 2004).

OH I see. You are using federal when this was a state case. I guess you aren't a states rights guy.

I am certain there is precedent for mandatory sentencing even if the concept may be a bad one.

Well, the appellate court disagreed with you about it being precedent and told the judge he was wrong, so I'll trust them!

That's enough for me today!