[Lazamataz]

I agree with Breyer and Kennedy.

[Tank-FL]

"During the talk, which was moderated by National Public Radio's Nina Totenberg, Breyer also talked about Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court decision that essentially handed the election victory to President Bush."

Can't we all just get along?

[wideawake]

If judges hadn't been so sickeningly lenient to criminals for decades, there would be no such thing as mandatory minimum sentencing.

Once judges demonstrate the ability to be responsible adults, the public may let them have their powers of sentencing discretion back.

But not a moment before.

[JAWs]

Manditory minimums are a legislative reaction to judicial excesses. The judges asuume that they're always the one reining ing the out of control legislature and find the taste of their own medicine quite bitter.

[TUX]

What do tenured professors and the men in black have in common?

Positions for life..

Free from the unwashed masses, and free to adopt all sorts of eleitist, un-American, kooky views.

Legislating from the bench and campuses for years they lash out at the body of the people in Congress applying any restraint.

[justshe]

I understand that Breyer was talking about mandatory federal minimum sentencing....but I wonder if there will be a trickle-down effect--should this ever be challenged. Many states have enacted mandatory minimum sentencing.

[Mr. Bird]

I'm not a big fan of mandatory minimums, but I am getting fed up with outspoken members of the judiciary. "Whereof you cannot speak" indeed. The mandatory minimums were lawfully enacted, and it is not a judge's place to evaluate a law's "fairness". Is it constitutional? If so, obey it.

I'm thinking with yahoos like the 9th Circuit freely abusing us, removing power from judges is a good thing...

[ClearCase_guy]

What is this whole "fair" business about? Does the Constitution say we have to be "fair" in our sentencing? Sure, we must avoid punishments that are cruel and unusual, but a sentencing is whatever the law decrees. Through our standard legal process, some mandatory sentences have been decreed by law and must be followed by judges.

If the Supreme Court ever moves to strike such laws, I'd sure like to see their justification!

[Unicorn]

They want to be the "Kings in the black robe"

[Question_Assumptions]

Fair or unfair, it is abuse of judicial "flexibility" that led to these punishments. If judges were slapping people on the wrists for serious crimes, there wouldn't be a perceived need for harsher sentences being manditory.

[MissAmericanPie]

"BOSTON — Mandatory minimum sentences are unfair and take away flexibility needed in the judicial process, said Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer."

Mandatory sentences were passed exactly to remove the "flexibility" of judges to coddle the criminal element, as liberal judges have been guilty of doing for decades.

There were so many outrageous cases of repeat offenders released with less than a slap on the wrist by liberal judges that something had to be done. They have proven time and again that they are incapable of doing their jobs fairly or with justice for victims.

"If a creep can't take the punishment, don't do the crime", was the sane and logical conclusion many citizens came to when they demanded something be done and mandatory sentencing was the answer.

[Unicorn]

They want to be the "Kings in the black robe"