Posted on 01/01/2004 12:02:24 AM PST by Tim Osman
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist on Thursday lashed out at Congress for not seeking input from the judiciary before it approved a law aimed at forcing judges to follow tougher sentencing guidelines.
"During the last year, it seems that the traditional interchange between the Congress and the judiciary broke down when Congress enacted what is known as the PROTECT Act, making some rather dramatic changes to the laws governing the federal sentencing process," Rehnquist said in his 2003 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary.
Rehnquist, who heads a group of 27 judges that in September called for a repeal of the law, spent much of his annual report criticizing lawmakers for approving legislation that severely limits the ability of judges to hand down lighter sentences than what the federal sentencing guidelines call for.
Though he noted that it was Congress' prerogative to determine what to consider when approving new laws, Rehnquist said it would have improved the legislative process to at least ask the judiciary its views.
Rep. James Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican who heads the Judiciary Committee in the House of Representatives, said lawmakers had received input from federal judges as they were considering the draft legislation.
"This disagreement resulted from a policy dispute between Congress and the judiciary and did not result from any breakdown in communications between the branches or a lack of opportunity for judges to express their thoughts on this issue," Sensenbrenner said in a statement.
The judiciary has been mired in a battle with Congress and the Justice Department to keep its independence and allow judges to retain flexibility in sentencing.
In April, Congress adopted the law aimed at forcing judges to follow stricter sentencing guidelines. The Justice Department was charged with creating a plan to enforce the rules.
As a result, Attorney General John Ashcroft directed federal prosecutors to report on judges who issue lighter sentences than what is recommended by the guidelines. v Rehnquist said he was particularly troubled by that requirement, since it collects information on an individual judge-by-judge basis.
He said if Congress begins to question a judge's decisions, it could appear to be "an unwarranted and ill-considered effort to intimidate individual judges in the performance of their judicial duties."
Here we are dealing with runaway judges and judicial tyranny and he is complaining about Congress not doing what they want.
On the other thing, if the ability of judges to assign their own sentences without fear is stricken, could the practice of jury nullification be soon outlawed? It seems that the two practices are related.
We're not having such a good track record with that! Campaign finance reform comes readily to mind...
On the subject of the courts - they can be our friends when they side with us (which means, the constitution). We have relied on them in the past to overturn stupid moves made by our legislatures...
On the subject of Rehnquist, he seems to be one of the good ones on the SCOTUS. But I'm still disappointed they chose not to hear Silveira v. Lockyer.
I guess that with their recent track records it is for the best.
It could never be enforced. A juror "nullify's" by simply saying "not guilty".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.