You ignored the point of his letter. The judge had a LEGAL obligation to impose the 10 year minimum. The law is very clear. It's no different than the judge deciding to rob a bank, it's against the law. That is the point. All of that being said, I agree that "minimum sentencing" requirements ignore the vast differences of each case and the judge should have a little leeway in sentencing.
I am all for it if Durbin is against it!
I still believe minimun sentencing requirements are effective and fair. Idiot judges that refuse to follow the law need to be removed.