New Libby Law

[Lanya]

    The Libby clemency will be the basis for many legal arguments, said Susan James, an Alabama lawyer representing Don E. Siegelman, the state?s former governor, who is appealing a sentence he received last week of 88 months for obstruction of justice and other offenses.

    "It's far more important than if he'd just pardoned Libby," Ms. James said, as forgiving a given offense as an act of executive grace would have had only political repercussions. "What you're going to see is people like me quoting President Bush in every pleading that comes across every federal judge's desk."

    Indeed, Mr. Bush's decision may have given birth to a new sort of legal document.

    "I anticipate that we?re going to get a new motion called "the Libby motion," Professor Podgor said. "It will basically say, 'My client should have got what Libby got, and here's why.'"
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/04/washington/04commute.html?_r=2&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1183566487-tPDYVqYSM+DwFZgvmEqBOQ

**********

    That Bush chose to make an exception for a political ally is galling to many career Justice Department prosecutors and other legal experts. Federal prosecutors said Tuesday the action would make it harder for them to persuade judges to deliver appropriate sentences.

    The critics included some Republicans who said Bush's decision did not square with an administration that had been ardently pro law-and-order. "It denigrates the significance of perjury prosecutions," John S. Martin Jr., a former U.S. attorney and federal judge in New York, said of the commutation.

    [...]

    Several federal prosecutors interviewed by The Times also said they were concerned that Bush's decision would send the wrong message to judges, giving them reason to lighten sentences and undermining the goal of a more uniform justice system.

    "Consistency and fidelity to the law are extraordinarily important. We have expended a lot of credibility to get judges to buy off on this," said one senior federal prosecutor who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about the issue.

    "I don't know how I am going to advise my people," the prosecutor said. "I cannot tell you how depressed and disgusted people are around here with this decision. It really undercuts law enforcement."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-na-libby4jul04,0,6710317.story?page=2&coll=la-home-center
   

[BT]

Wonder if the professor is aware of the discipline of constitutional law.

[Michael Tee]

I tend to agree with BT on this one.  I don't see how anyone, especially an officer of the court, which a defence attorney is, can confuse the judicial duty to apply the law with the executive privilege of pardon. 

The pardon stands as a graphic demonstration of this administration's utter contempt for the law, and in that sense is truly superfluous when considered beside the invasion of Iraq, the use of torture, renditions of prisoners, signing statements, spying on citizens, politicization of federal prosecutions, etc., etc., etc.

[sirs]

So....Lanya's advocating we x-out that portion in the Constitution that provides the President to do precisely what he's constitutionally allowed to do, now that a Republican is in office??  Or just this Republican?

[hnumpah]

[Lanya]

As I understand it (and I believe I've posted it), when you commute someone's sentence, they must have at least started serving it.   So that's one thing that's up in the air here.  He hasn't served any time. 

Then, the reason for the commutation (note: it's not a pardon) was that the sentence was too harsh.

Nope. It wasn't found to be too harsh for any other people, with any other crimes, just Scooter. 

This is how you get a disrespect for the rule of law, because we can see it doesn't mean much.  Commuted sentence? Yippee.  Oh, he hasn't even served any yet? Oh well, make up something, he's a frend of Bushie's.   

That's unamerican.  That is not anywhere close to having respect for law and order. 

[BT]

As I understand it (and I believe I've posted it), when you commute someone's sentence, they must have at least started serving it.   So that's one thing that's up in the air here.  He hasn't served any time. 

Then, the reason for the commutation (note: it's not a pardon) was that the sentence was too harsh.

Nope. It wasn't found to be too harsh for any other people, with any other crimes, just Scooter. 

This is how you get a disrespect for the rule of law, because we can see it doesn't mean much.  Commuted sentence? Yippee.  Oh, he hasn't even served any yet? Oh well, make up something, he's a frend of Bushie's.   

That's unamerican.  That is not anywhere close to having respect for law and order. 

You understand wrong. Show me the article in the constitution that states a sentence must be started before commutation can take place.

[Lanya]

[....] http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/files/libby_3583.pdf

On July 2, 2007, the President of the United States commuted the term of incarceration imposed on the defendant by the Court, ?leaving intact and in effect the two-year term of supervised release, with all its conditions, and all other components of the sentence.? Grant of Executive Clemancy at 1. It has been brought to the Court?s attention that the United States Probation Office for the District of Columbia intends to contact the defendant imminantly to require him to begin his term of supervised release. Strictly construed, the statute authorizing the imposition of supervised release indicates that such release should occur only after the defendant has already served a term of imprisonment. 18 USC Sec. 3583(a) (stating that the defendant ?[may] be placed on a term of supervised release after imprisonment?) (emphasis added). That is, despite the President?s direction that the defendant?s prison sentence be commuted and his term of supervised release remain intact?Sec. 3583 does not appear to contemplate a situation in which the defendant may be placed under supervised release without first completing a term of incarceration.

http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/files/libby_3583.pdf

[BT]

That's all very interesting, but you failed to quote the relevant article of the constitution that states a commutation issued by the President can only take place after the sentence has commenced.

[Lanya]

There is a law concerning commutation of sentences.  It's not in the Constitution.  Neither are many other laws.  Do we throw them out? 

[sirs]

As I said, apparently Lanya is advocating crossing out sections of the Constitution she doesn't like.  Makes sense since she also supports crossing out portions of the 1st amendment as well, with her unFariness Doctrine support     

[BT]

There is a law concerning commutation of sentences.  It's not in the Constitution.  Neither are many other laws.  Do we throw them out? 

Perhaps that law is not applicable to commutations derived from Presidential Pardons.

Otherwise there appears to a collision of powers.

[_JS]

As I said, apparently Lanya is advocating crossing out sections of the Constitution she doesn't like.  Makes sense since she also supports crossing out portions of the 1st amendment as well, with her unFariness Doctrine support     

Pot.

Kettle.

Black.

[BT]

JS

What are your thoughts on the Lanya tangent, is she and the author of the article on the right track on this? Or is she trying to make applesause from oranges?

[sirs]

As I said, apparently Lanya is advocating crossing out sections of the Constitution she doesn't like.  Makes sense since she also supports crossing out portions of the 1st amendment as well, with her unFariness Doctrine support     

Pot.  Kettle.  Black.

Of course, you'll show me what parts of the Constitution I'm advocating the x-ing out of, as it relates to American citizens, won't you?  I thank you in advance