In his mind, and according to the precedent set by a 50 year old US Supreme Court decision. The latter is the governing consideration in his opinion.
It sounds like what you really want, is for the judge to take an activist role, rather than what he actually did, which was to interpret the law according to its actual wording, and previous precedent.
Count me out.
I am not in favor of activist judges unless you consider judges who follow activist judges and overturn their rulings to be activist as well.
I do see your point of view in the appellate judges decision. I do see “compelling” circumstances with the situation with the illegal alien which should be allowed to be considered as they often are in other cases.
The problem seems to me to be that in this case the prosecution had already agreed to probation for the drug smuggling of which the judge felt he could not agree. The jail term was still within the specified sentencing guidelines for the crime(s).
Judges are allowed to set aside plea agreements. In this case, the judge felt compelled to give reasons for the set aside which caused his ruling to be overturned by the appellate judge. The proposed sentence was not questioned, just the rationale.
And no, I agree with you, deportation is preferable to trials for most cases innvolving illegals.