Rehnquist Nails Congress on Judge Limits

APNews ^ | 1/1/04 | Jennifer Kerr

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

Congress should have sought the judiciary's advice before limiting the ability of judges to impose lighter sentences than specified in federal guidelines, the nation's top judge says.

"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," Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote Thursday in his annual report on the state of the judiciary.

The changes that Rehnquist objects to were tucked into an anti-crime bill passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush in April. It targeted child kidnappers, molesters and pornographers and included a national Amber Alert network.

But it also included a provision sponsored by Rep. Tom Feeney, R-Fla., and supported by Attorney General John Ashcroft, that reduced federal judges' discretion in sentencing criminals, and required reports to Congress on any judge who departs from sentencing guidelines.

Collecting this information on judges, Rehnquist said, is "troubling." He said cataloguing such data "could appear to be an unwarranted and ill-considered effort to intimidate individual judges in the performance of their judicial duties."

Other critics say it could lead to a "black list" of judges deemed soft on crime.

In the report, the chief judge lectured Congress on the importance of a strong working relationship between the judicial and legislative branches, and he cited historical examples in which the two arms of government consulted on drafting laws.

He complained that the measure changing judges' sentencing authority was enacted "without any consideration of the views of the judiciary." He added, "It surely improves the legislative process at least to ask the judiciary its views on such a significant piece of legislation."

Mary Cheh, a law professor at George Washington University Law School, said Rehnquist has a legitimate complaint.

Congress adopted "rules and procedures that really are quite unacceptable as far as the judges go because it so restricts their discretion and so straightjackets the process that it really has caused a lot of consternation," she said. The new law means "the sentencing process is even more removed from the judge ... and placed more heavily in the hands of prosecutors."

Prior to the new law, prosecutors had long complained that judges had too much leeway in imposing sentences.

Supporters of the measure argue that it was needed to ensure fair and equal sentencing justice throughout the judiciary. House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., said too often judges were handing down sentences less than those specified in federal guidelines.

"The Feeney amendment seeks to correct these sentencing disparities so that one person doesn't receive a sentence three times as long as another person committing the same crime," Sensenbrenner said in a statement responding to Rehnquist's report.

The Judicial Conference of the United States - a 27-judge body that sets policy for federal trial judges, appeals judges and others - voted in September to support overturning the law.

Sens. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and other Democrats have introduced legislation that would nullify the Feeney amendment.

Calls to Feeney's offices in Washington and Florida were not returned Wednesday.

[Young Rhino]

I'll start worrying about Rehnquist's feelings the day his court stops creating sodomy and abortion rights out of thin air.

[Sgt_Schultze]

Sounds like Rehnquist's faculties, like O'Connor's, are failing. Here is a link to the Constitution... US Constitution...

I didn't find anything in it about advice and consent on the part of the judiciary concerning laws enacted by Congress - even those affecting the Supreme Court or any inferior court's behavior.

[Huck]

It's funny. Each branch of government guards its own power so much more jealously than it guards the powers of the people.

[McGavin999]

The judiciary has stood silent while congress takes over their power by killing judicial nominations. They have stood silent while the 9th Circuit writes their own laws. They have approved silencing the people with campaign finance laws that will only hurt the little people who can't fund massive ad campaigns to support the things they believe in. They have upheld the laws that discriminate between American citizens.

Who cares what they think.

[cynicom]

The nine old fools need limits to their time on the bench. O'Connor is hanging on to see if Bush is defeated.

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

When the framers created the Constitution how could they have foreseen lifelong politicians holding office rather than regular citizens?

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

Reread it. Look for the ability to legislate at both congressional and judicial levels.

[sully777]

Schultze!

"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,"

Judges are to be overseen by Congress and their behavior, esp. devient and/or treasonous behavior noted. Problem with Congress is that many of them need the help of the judiciary with their own devient behavor as they go judge-shopping.

[fatrat]

Collecting this information on judges, Rehnquist said, is "troubling." He said cataloguing such data "could appear to be an unwarranted and ill-considered effort to intimidate individual judges in the performance of their judicial duties."

they need to know that they are being held accountable for the performance of their duties just like everybody else should be.

[Sgt_Schultze]

Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Seems pretty clear who has oversight authority.

[Sgt_Schultze]

TC. What do you want me to realize? I know that Congress has only the authority spelled out in its Article 1 duties and is held back (presumably) by the IX, X Amendment restrictions. To what else are you referring?

[af_vet_1981]

Sounds like Rehnquist's faculties, like O'Connor's, are failing.

Yep, there should be no lifetime judicial appointments. The founding fathers made a mistake on this like they did on slavery. We need judicial reform because we are living under judicial tyranny. Remove and impeach some judges and change the rules of judicial appointments.

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

The Constitution says that presidents, members of Congress, judiciary... are to protect liberty and defend the rule of law. Instead they are DEFINING it. What would leftism be without activist judges who literally define liberty by ignoring our Constitution?

[mrsmith]

Rehnquist may have a point that more consultation should have been taken by congress with the courts. But the two have been talking about this matter for ever.

The keeping of records on the subject is unfortunate, but there is a seemingly reasonable regard that judges are disobeying the law- and that is much more unfortunate.

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

Consider those who oppose it and what does that tell you?

[Libertina]

BTTT Each branch of government guards its own power so much more jealously than it guards the powers of the people.
I wish every elected official would read this statement.

[Hacksaw]

If the judges showed any common sense in sentencing in the past, this would have never been passed.

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

What does it have to do with "common sense"?

[Destro]

I agree. Judges to the SC should be appointed for one 20 year term and no longer. A generation is counted as 30 years and by making a SC chair available every 20 years allows for the newly appointed judge to reflect the new generation with input from the remaining older generation.