"Bush Seeks To Re-Impose Mandatory Minimums
June 13, 2007
WASHINGTON --AP -- The Bush administration is trying to roll back a Supreme Court decision by pushing legislation that would require prison time for nearly all criminals."
One more question: Why didn't the so called Liberal Press mention this at the time of the commutation?
2007-07-15
08:09:11
·
12 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/13/politics/main2924206.shtml
2007-07-15
08:09:50 ·
update #1
Coragryph - Libby was convicted in FEDERAL court
2007-07-15
08:20:26 ·
update #2
A few years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that the US Sentencing Guidelines should be advisory, not mandatory in administering sentencing in Federal Court. This was in response to then-Attorney General Ashcroft's memos to the various US Attorneys to make a "black list" of judges who did not strictly sentence according to the USSG.
In essence, the Executive Branch was preventing the Judiciary Branch from exercising their proper duties.
The USSG is written by a committee in the Senate, the Legislative Branch.
Subsequently, the USSG was made an advisory tool, not mandatory. However, the Bush administration was against this change.
Thus, Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence is not only hypocritical; it also undermines the powers of the Judiciary Branch and the system of justice.
2007-07-15 08:21:33
·
answer #1
·
answered by MenifeeManiac 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
The Libby thing was all political, that's why. The Valerie Plame case was BS from the beginning. Plame had been "outed" long ago by Aldrich Ames. This is why she was not on assignment. The most recent "outing" or "leak" was a non-story, since it was already public knowledge that Plame was in the CIA.
It's the president's prerogative to commute, pardon, etc. Clinton did a lot of pardoning and commuting as well, and many of those went out to people who had given him and/or Hillary gobs of campaign money. Still his call.
Anyhow, Scooter was convicted of doing the same thing that Clinton did (lying under oath). I'm sure Bush would have given Clinton a pardon had he been convicted or prosecuted, if only to spare the country the BS of a trial of a president.
2007-07-15 08:20:23
·
answer #2
·
answered by Jack 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
Because in the New World Order 's plans - There will be one highly repressive system for the masses of humanity and another for the self-appointed global elite.
Bonesman Bush is an illuminati and loyal only to his own cast.
as for the 'liberal' press- as with the opposition in Congress it is merely a false 'opposition'. Just look how many of the "alternative" newsmedia attack the 9/11 truthers.
don't allow them to dictate the debate- they're all paid off shills!
2007-07-15 08:24:35
·
answer #3
·
answered by celvin 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Bush commuted Libby's sentence to silence him.
Remember Libby's wife's comment at the verdict reading?
It was "We're gonna F--- 'em"!
By commuting Libby's sentence it gave Libby the ability to claim 5th amendment rights in possible future White House prosecution cases!!
Bush was covering his own @ss!!
2007-07-15 08:27:52
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
I partailly disagree inclusive of your assertion because of the fact that there has been low reoffending fee with people who've been below rehab classes for intercourse offenders, yet I do agree we want needed minimums for intercourse offenders. reason A being because of the fact we want them locked away for an prolonged time to alter, area B being it is going to render a lot of those stupid residency requirement rules for intercourse offenders ineffective. the stable factor is all human beings is seeking to enforce Jessica's regulation in some sort.
2016-10-03 21:08:29
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
easily Fitzpatrick satisfied the outline of his charge when
Richard Armitage told him right away
that he was the one that
provided Bob Novack with the name..
Novack corraborated by revealing to Fitzpatrick Armitage's name..
instead Fitzpatrick embarked on an
investigation that rivaled a rookie detective's zeal..
into things he had no purview..
Bush simply cut his losses and commuted Libby's sentence..
which I feel will be a full pardon very soon..
when the questions come full circle about how he came to
decide on the commutation.
2007-07-15 08:17:36
·
answer #6
·
answered by UMD Terps 3
·
0⤊
2⤋
It's called hypocrisy. Nothing new for Bush.
But any federal legislation would only affect federal crimes. Congress cannot order states to change their laws to require mandatory minimums for state crimes.
2007-07-15 08:12:50
·
answer #7
·
answered by coragryph 7
·
3⤊
2⤋
Mr. Libby was railroaded. Mr. Bush did the right thing by commuting his sentence. I hope Mr. Bush pardon's Mr. Libby.
2007-07-15 08:22:04
·
answer #8
·
answered by regerugged 7
·
1⤊
3⤋
Dictator Dumbya and (logic and equity) are logically incompatible.
2007-07-15 09:04:21
·
answer #9
·
answered by rhino9joe 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
Do the words "Double Standard" mean anything to you?
2007-07-15 08:29:18
·
answer #10
·
answered by Bon Mot 6
·
2⤊
0⤋