[rhombus]

The court did not say DUI could not be a “felony.” The court said DUI could not be a “violent felony.” Just like embezzlement is a felony, but not a violent felony.

So now the courts are defining what "violent" means?

[TheThirdRuffian]

“So now the courts are defining what “violent” means?”

In that particular statute, yes. That’s what judges are supposed to do: interpret statutes.

The law said (paraphrase to make the point): you have three “violent felonies” and on the forth one, you get this mega-horrid punishment.

Well, let’s say, Defendant X has on his rap sheet: (1) a DUI; (2) assault with a deadly weapon; and (3) murder, then gets busted for some federal crime.

The prosecutor wants to enhance his sentence under this law.

Well, is that 3 “violent felonies” or just 2?

The court decided it was just 2, after reading the law.

That’s the court’s job.