Judicial review as established by Marbury v. Madison is judicial activism in its purest sense.
I'm not following your reasoning. If today's decision is an attempt at a clear reading of the Constitution, how can it be activist?
Posted on 06/24/2002 8:04:58 AM PDT by Cagey
Judicial review as established by Marbury v. Madison is judicial activism in its purest sense.
The Supreme Court upheld the sentence because: 1.the sentence that he received could have been imposed for the crime even without the judge finding the brandishing(he faced a MINIMUM of 5 years), and 2.the sentence did not exceed the maximum that he could receive from a jury conviction of the crime(MAXIMUM = life).
I agree that it is very confusing and is only partially(if at all)consistent with the Ring case. Basically, for crimes where there is a sentence range, the judge can sentence within that range as long as the sentence does not exceed the "normal" maximum allowed for that crime. If the legislature allows a sentence above the maximum for certain types of that crime(e.g., death sentence for certain 1st degree murders, add'l prison time for certain crimes when motivated by "hate"), then the jury must find that those facts exist before a judge can impose the sentence above the "normal" maximum for that crime.
Hope my explanation didn't confuse you more.
As would I, any day. Well said.
Judicial review as established by Marbury v. Madison is judicial activism in its purest sense.
I'm not following your reasoning. If today's decision is an attempt at a clear reading of the Constitution, how can it be activist?
In that case, you know who else might want them?
I suppose, though, this was perhaps part of the reason the decision was so bitterly contested, although I have not read the dissenting opinion in order to see what the rationale behind it was.
As a side note, I do feel today's decision in Ring was a blow against the death penalty, although only directly affecting 5 states (likely a few more, including my home state of Indiana--in light of today's decision by the Court, I see no way a lower court could rule that a judge who chose to impose a death sentence after a jury recommended life could in any way be constutitional. This is Indiana, FL, et al.) Anyhow, us anti-death penalty advocates are used to our victories one baby-step at a time, or in this case, 5 states at a time. All in all, the last 2 days of decisions, things are pretty right with the world.
I'm for jury nullification, though it would be kind of odd for sentencing phase juries (makes good sense for guilt phase though). Unfortunately jury nullification has never been very popular, though it should be in the judges instructions somewhere.
Whether it is deciding guilt or innocence or deciding death or life it is an impartial jury that decides both those separate issues. That's The Point.
Also, jury nullification -- to judge the law not just the fact -- for the first 106 years since the constitution was first ratified was routine jury instruction. I would say that it was very popular. For the last 109 years that instruction has not been given to juries. I would say that it has not been at all popular to non-existent in that time frame due to honest justice being shelved in favor of agenda-judges, or as you put it, activist judges.
The question is not who determines sentences. The issue here is who determines the facts, judges or juries. Ring was convicted of felony murder, meaning someone was killed in the course of a felony, and no matter how many people were involved in the felony and no matter who actually committed the murder, all persons involved in the felony can be convicted of the murder. According to the law, Ring could then only be sentenced to death if the judge determined that he was the person who actually pulled the trigger. During the sentencing hearing, the judge accepted the testimony of Ring's accomplice, who fingered Ring as the triggerman. But the jury never heard this testimony at trial. The jury in fact heard no evidence that identified Ring as the actual killer at all.
If the state wants to sentence him to death for being the actual killer, then the state should prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury that he is in fact the actual killer. I think it's a good decision.
It doesn't apply to just death sentences. This case is based on the Apprendi decision from 2000, which stated that "any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt."
This is virtually tantamount to saying that they don't have faith in our justice system. If this is case, they should quit and get a new job.
If the barometer for government workers keeping their jobs was their faith in the system, the AFSME rolls would consist of two people. They are both in a coma.
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.
