The appalling failure today of Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer, Anthony Kennedy, John Roberts and Samuel Alito [Updated]
This speaks for itself. I’m sure that Kennedy, Roberts and Alito call this ‘freedom’. I won’t guess at what Sotomayor and Kagan call it. But what Breyer calls it, or should, is conflict of interest. Back when Breyer was lead counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee, he helped draft the Federal Sentencing Guidelines—a really appalling policy—and has spent the remainder of his career serving as rear-guard protector of it.
Breyer makes me sick. Then again, so does Kagan (nothing new there) and now Sotomayor.
But let’s hear it for Ginsburg, Scalia and Thomas.
UPDATE: Anyone who’s interested in this subject–and anyone who’s interested in the broader subject of an increasingly important chasm between rightwing libertarianism that is limited solely to taxes/economic-regulation/the-47% schtick and right-wing libertarianism that actually also considers the issue of denial of actual physical freedom to be within the definition of Freedom! Liberty!, presumably even when the denial of physical freedom is by a state or local government rather than by the federal gummint–should read this blog post on the rightwing-libertatian Cato Institute’s web site, about this “cert.” denial.
Of particular interest to me is the comment about Kagan’s decision (evident throughout her tenure on the Court) to be part of the “pragmatic” wing. As the Cato post implies, Kagan has a pretty curious idea of “pragmatism.”
The case at issue, Jones v. United States, was a case prosecuted federal court and subject to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. But the ground on which cert. was sought was one under the Sixth Amendment, and a ruling finding the judicial practice at issue unconstitutional would have applied to state prosecutions as well as to federal ones.
10/16 at 12:25 p.m.