Sensenbrenner meddles in appeals court case
The Chicago Tribune reports in Sunday's paper that Rep. F. Jim Sensenbrenner tried to get a federal appeals court to change its decision in a drug case. Why? He thought the sentence was too lenient.
From Maurice Possley's story:
" In an extraordinary move, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee privately demanded last month that the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago change its decision in a narcotics case because he didn't believe a drug courier got a harsh enough prison term. . .
Sensenbrenner, of course, thinks that is perfectly OK, but others don't. Back to the story:
"(S)ome legal experts believe the action by the Judiciary Committee chairman, who is an attorney, is a violation of House ethics rules, which prohibit communicating privately with judges on legal matters, as well as court rules that bar such contact with judges without contacting all parties.
"Further, the letter may be an intrusion on the Constitution's separation-of-powers doctrine, or, at least, the latest encroachment by Congress upon the judiciary, analysts said. "
Today's earlier post on Sensenbrenner profile in the Journal Sentinel.
UPDATE: Folkbum Jay Bullock contrasts the Trib and JS coverage.
posted by xoff @ 10:54 AM
2 comments
2 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous, F. Jim wasn't "offering an opinion." He was using his position as Judiciary Chair to threaten--in unethical (by House and Wisconsin Bar standards) ex parte communication--an appeals court that gave a minor player in a drug case a sentence that was only 85% of what the law allows. The case was so inconsequential that the Attorney General did not bother to get involved. The woman in the case was not a "thug," and regardless of whether you want to argue it, she was still sentenced to 8 1/2 years in jail.
F. Jim was so out of line on this that the appeals court issued an special updated ruling just to mark the occasion of his letter, telling him how he was legally in the wrong.
Is this the kind of petty viciousness you want in a Judiciary Chair? In a Congressman, period?
Post a Comment
<< Home