Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAmerica's first black president wants to keep blacks in prison under law now deemed unconsitutional
Why US v Blewett is the Obama Justice Department's greatest shameExplain the paradox that the US still jails thousands of African Americans on sentences it admits were unfair? It can't be done.
The differential treatment of crack cocaine and powder cocaine by America's criminal "justice" system has been exposed as discriminatory and admitted to be unfair. Yet, the secret nightmare continues for thousands of African Americans still in prison for crack cocaine offenses, while people convicted of powder cocaine offenses – the majority of whom are white or Hispanic – have served far shorter sentences. Even as the US government has reformed the injustice of punitive sentencing for crack, it has doubled down on the injustice for those imprisoned before the reforms.
I'll never forget the first time I had to explain federal crack cocaine laws to a client. I was 25 years old, fresh out of law school, and working as a public defender in Alabama. I had come to the local jail, where my client was being held in a 6ft x 8ft cell with three other men and no access to fresh air or to a single window.
My client thought he would be released from jail and home with his family after our first appearance in court. Instead, I told him, the tiny bag of crack cocaine that police had found in his car – less than half the size of a ping-pong ball – meant that he would likely spend the next five to 40 years in prison.
Last month, President Obama quietly did something that should shake every American to the core. Seeking to enforce federal crack cocaine laws that have since been repealed, the Obama administration asked a federal appeals court to ensure that thousands of human beings, mostly poor and mostly black, remain locked in prison – even though everyone agrees that there is no justification for them to be there.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/23/us-v-blewett-obama-justice-department-shame
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
46 replies, 3178 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (22)
ReplyReply to this post
46 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
America's first black president wants to keep blacks in prison under law now deemed unconsitutional (Original Post)
avaistheone1
Jul 2013
OP
poor you. you really are acting like your back is against the wall and you're lashing out n/t
cali
Jul 2013
#43
Here is the appeal for a review, 'en banc', i.e. by the full appellate court. And the legal arguments
pinto
Jul 2013
#11
Here the rationale for the DOJ's appeal. The entire appeal and some commentary are at the link.
xocet
Jul 2013
#46
Half a ping pong ball's worth of crack isn't a small amount? It's a freaking quarter ounce.
Comrade Grumpy
Jul 2013
#39
Wow, the Obama administration took time out from prosecuting whistleblowers and medical marijuana
MotherPetrie
Jul 2013
#30
If Obama wants to appear tough on crime, he should go after Dimon, Blankfein and Cheney. nt
Jack Rabbit
Jul 2013
#42
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)1. Obama's a racist.
Rush told me.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)2. Does that Bon Mot somehow render the OP worthless?
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)5. It just serves to make them feel better
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)4. Obama is more of a corporatist.
This decision is good for the prison industrial complex, not so good for incarcerated black folks.
Has Obama ever met a corporation he didn't like? Which side do you think he is on in this decision?
Angelonthesidelines
(70 posts)41. Sad evidence to your point
I hoped for the best with President Obama but was sorely disappointed after he chose Wall Street hucksters for his first cabinet.
It seems President Obama is more concerned with corporate profits than his constituents' lives.
Wounded Bear
(58,698 posts)3. And we get this news from the Guardian...
Heaven forbid any American paper carry it. 
Gotta prop up the Prison Industry, which really shouldn't even exist.
sinkingfeeling
(51,471 posts)6. Does the President approve/disapprove of every thing the DOJ or any
agency takes on?
Hydra
(14,459 posts)35. He'd better if it's this important
Or he's not doing his job.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)7. This
"America's first black president wants to keep blacks in prison under law now deemed unconsitutional"
...is bullshit hyperbole. From the OP link:
Until President Obama signed the Fair Sentencing Act, on 3 August 2010, there had been, for over two decades, a 100:1 disparity in the quantities of drugs seized that would trigger the mandatory minimum penalties faced by tens of thousands of people like my client. In other words, while my client's five to 40 years was triggered by only 5g of crack cocaine, it would take 500g (half a kilo) of powder cocaine to trigger the same penalty.
The administration pushed for the law's retroactivity, and got it.
Holder Urges Retroactivity of Fair Sentencing Act
http://prospect.org/article/holder-urges-retroactivity-fair-sentencing-act
Retroactive Reductions Sought in Crack Penalties
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/02/us/02cocaine.html
Chance at Freedom: Retroactive Crack Sentence Reductions For Up to 12,000 May Begin Today
http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/chance-freedom-retroactive-crack-sentence-reductions-12000-may-begin-today
Posted this back in 2011.
Justice Is Served
By Laura W. Murphy
June 2011 marks the 40th anniversary of President Richard Nixon's declaration of a "war on drugs" — a war that has cost roughly a trillion dollars, has produced little to no effect on the supply of or demand for drugs in the United States, and has contributed to making America the world's largest incarcerator. Throughout the month, check back daily for posts about the drug war, its victims and what needs to be done to restore fairness and create effective policy.
Today is an exciting day for the ACLU and criminal justice advocates around the country. Following much thought and careful deliberation, the United States Sentencing Commission took another step toward creating fairness in federal sentencing by retroactively applying the new Fair Sentencing Act (FSA) guidelines to individuals sentenced before the law was enacted. This decision will help ensure that over 12,000 people — 85 percent of whom are African-Americans — will have the opportunity to have their sentences for crack cocaine offenses reviewed by a federal judge and possibly reduced.
This decision is particularly important to me because, as director of the ACLU's Washington Legislative Office, I have advocated for Congress and the sentencing commission to reform federal crack cocaine laws for almost 20 years. In 1993, the ACLU lead the coalition that convened the first national symposium highlighting the crack cocaine disparity entitled "The 100 to 1 Ratio: Racial Bias in Cocaine Laws." Now, 25 years after the first crack cocaine law was enacted in the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act, the sentencing commission has taken another step toward ending the racial and sentencing disparities that continue to exist in our criminal justice system.
By voting in favor of retroactivity, I am pleased that the commission chose justice over demagoguery and concluded that retroactivity was necessary to ensuring that the goals of the FSA were fully realized. It is important to remember that even with today's commission vote not every crack cocaine offender will have his or her sentence reduced. Judges are still required to determine whether a person qualifies for a retroactive reduction so, contrary to what some have said, this is not a "get out of jail free card."
- more -
http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/justice-served
By Laura W. Murphy
June 2011 marks the 40th anniversary of President Richard Nixon's declaration of a "war on drugs" — a war that has cost roughly a trillion dollars, has produced little to no effect on the supply of or demand for drugs in the United States, and has contributed to making America the world's largest incarcerator. Throughout the month, check back daily for posts about the drug war, its victims and what needs to be done to restore fairness and create effective policy.
Today is an exciting day for the ACLU and criminal justice advocates around the country. Following much thought and careful deliberation, the United States Sentencing Commission took another step toward creating fairness in federal sentencing by retroactively applying the new Fair Sentencing Act (FSA) guidelines to individuals sentenced before the law was enacted. This decision will help ensure that over 12,000 people — 85 percent of whom are African-Americans — will have the opportunity to have their sentences for crack cocaine offenses reviewed by a federal judge and possibly reduced.
This decision is particularly important to me because, as director of the ACLU's Washington Legislative Office, I have advocated for Congress and the sentencing commission to reform federal crack cocaine laws for almost 20 years. In 1993, the ACLU lead the coalition that convened the first national symposium highlighting the crack cocaine disparity entitled "The 100 to 1 Ratio: Racial Bias in Cocaine Laws." Now, 25 years after the first crack cocaine law was enacted in the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act, the sentencing commission has taken another step toward ending the racial and sentencing disparities that continue to exist in our criminal justice system.
By voting in favor of retroactivity, I am pleased that the commission chose justice over demagoguery and concluded that retroactivity was necessary to ensuring that the goals of the FSA were fully realized. It is important to remember that even with today's commission vote not every crack cocaine offender will have his or her sentence reduced. Judges are still required to determine whether a person qualifies for a retroactive reduction so, contrary to what some have said, this is not a "get out of jail free card."
- more -
http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/justice-served
Federal Appeals Court: Drug Sentencing Disparity Is Intentional Racial ‘Subjucation’
By Nicole Flatow
Since Congress recognized the gaping racial disparity between mandatory minimum sentences for crack offenses and cocaine offenses and reduced the ratio from 100-to-1 to 18-to-1, courts have grappled with when and how to apply the statute to already-decided cases. Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the reductions in the Fair Sentencing Act applied to at least those cases decided before the law was passed, but not yet sentenced. But questions remain about whether the statute applies retroactively to tens of thousands of other inmates who might seek reduced sentences.
On Friday, a federal appeals court panel issued a sweeping decision that held the reduced sentencing ratio should apply retroactively to all cases, not just because that was the intent of the 2010 Fair Sentencing Act, but because failure to do so would be unconstitutional. In a powerful statement about the troubling history of drug sentencing, Sixth Circuit Judges Gilbert Merritt and Boyce Martin write:
- more -
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/18/2032401/federal-appeals-court-drug-sentencing-disparity-is-intentional-racial-subjucation/
By Nicole Flatow
Since Congress recognized the gaping racial disparity between mandatory minimum sentences for crack offenses and cocaine offenses and reduced the ratio from 100-to-1 to 18-to-1, courts have grappled with when and how to apply the statute to already-decided cases. Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the reductions in the Fair Sentencing Act applied to at least those cases decided before the law was passed, but not yet sentenced. But questions remain about whether the statute applies retroactively to tens of thousands of other inmates who might seek reduced sentences.
On Friday, a federal appeals court panel issued a sweeping decision that held the reduced sentencing ratio should apply retroactively to all cases, not just because that was the intent of the 2010 Fair Sentencing Act, but because failure to do so would be unconstitutional. In a powerful statement about the troubling history of drug sentencing, Sixth Circuit Judges Gilbert Merritt and Boyce Martin write:
The old 100-to-1 crack cocaine ratio has led to the mass incarceration of thousands of nonviolent prisoners under a law widely acknowledged as racially discriminatory. There were approximately 30,000 federal prisoners (about 15 percent of all federal prisoners) serving crack cocaine sentences in 2011. Thousands of these prisoners are incarcerated for life or for 20, 10, or 5 years under mandatory minimum crack cocaine sentences imposed prior to the passage of the Fair Sentencing Act. More than 80 percent of federal prisoners serving crack cocaine sentences are black. In fiscal year 2010, before the passage of the Fair Sentencing Act, almost 4,000 defendants, mainly black, received mandatory minimum sentences for crack cocaine. <…>
The Fair Sentencing Act was a step forward, but it did not finish the job. The racial discrimination continues by virtue of a web of statutes, sentencing guidelines, and court cases that maintain the harsh provisions for those defendants sentenced before the Fair Sentencing Act. If we continue now with a construction of the statute that perpetuates the discrimination, there is no longer any defense that the discrimination is unintentional. The discriminatory nature of the old sentencing regime is so obvious that it cannot seriously be argued that race does not play a role in the failure to retroactively apply the Fair Sentencing Act. A “disparate impact” case now becomes an intentional subjugation or discriminatory purpose case. Like slavery and Jim Crow laws, the intentional maintenance of discriminatory sentences is a denial of equal protection.
- more -
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/18/2032401/federal-appeals-court-drug-sentencing-disparity-is-intentional-racial-subjucation/
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)14. Your links and references are way out of date.
BTW The OP title was coined at Progressive Review regarding this news story.
Ah ha! “The pot” should not call anyone on DU out for b.s. hyperbole!
Strangely, the Obama administration initially urged in federal courts across the country that the old discriminatory penalties should still be applied to those arrested but not yet sentenced at the time the law was passed. However, the administration reversed course after significant criticism, and the US supreme court held last year that the new, more "fair" sentences must be applied to those not yet sentenced.
But that case did not decide the fate of any of the thousands of people already sitting in prison because of what all agree is an unfair law. For those people – sentenced, in some cases, just days or weeks before the Fair Sentencing Act was signed – our society's acknowledgment that they remain in prison for no good reason may not help them at all – because the government did not care to reduce their penalties retroactively when it declared them unjust.
For several years, federal judges have done nothing to remedy this injustice; one famously concluded that the prisoners sentenced under the old law had simply "lost on a temporal roll of the cosmic dice". So, there are American citizens serving tens of thousands of years in prison because, according to all three branches of government, it's just their tough luck?
Apparently so, until two months ago. On 17 May 2013, the US court of appeals for the sixth circuit held that the new, "fair" sentences must be applied to all those previously sentenced under laws that everyone acknowledges were discriminatory. The two-judge majority opinion wrote forcefully (pdf) and with unusual candor about the history of unequal treatment under the old laws. The judges ordered that those sentenced under those laws were entitled to ask federal judges to reduce their sentences.
The Justice Department is now seeking to overturn that decision – which will be devastating news to many thousands like my original crack cocaine client. The Obama administration would surely condemn an oppressive foreign dictator's regime for the singular cruelty of declaring to its population that thousands of its citizens must continue to sit in prison for no good reason. The fact that few have even heard of the stunning position taken by President Obama is a sad reflection on how incurious mainstream US public opinion is about what underpins our mass incarceration society
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/23/us-v-blewett-obama-justice-department-shame#start-of-comments
Your links was terribly out of date. They were written in 2011, and are more than 2 years old. The Justice Department is trying now, at this time to overturn the Court of Appeals decision. What are you not getting here prosense?
---The Guardian's article I referenced on this topic was published Tuesday 23 July 2013.
---It was written by Alec Karakatsanis is a public defender and civil rights lawyer at the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia, where he litigates cases to reform the criminal justice system. He was recently awarded a grant by Harvard Law School to found a nonprofit civil rights organization called Equal Justice Under Law.
Ah ha! “The pot” should not call anyone on DU out for b.s. hyperbole!
Strangely, the Obama administration initially urged in federal courts across the country that the old discriminatory penalties should still be applied to those arrested but not yet sentenced at the time the law was passed. However, the administration reversed course after significant criticism, and the US supreme court held last year that the new, more "fair" sentences must be applied to those not yet sentenced.
But that case did not decide the fate of any of the thousands of people already sitting in prison because of what all agree is an unfair law. For those people – sentenced, in some cases, just days or weeks before the Fair Sentencing Act was signed – our society's acknowledgment that they remain in prison for no good reason may not help them at all – because the government did not care to reduce their penalties retroactively when it declared them unjust.
For several years, federal judges have done nothing to remedy this injustice; one famously concluded that the prisoners sentenced under the old law had simply "lost on a temporal roll of the cosmic dice". So, there are American citizens serving tens of thousands of years in prison because, according to all three branches of government, it's just their tough luck?
Apparently so, until two months ago. On 17 May 2013, the US court of appeals for the sixth circuit held that the new, "fair" sentences must be applied to all those previously sentenced under laws that everyone acknowledges were discriminatory. The two-judge majority opinion wrote forcefully (pdf) and with unusual candor about the history of unequal treatment under the old laws. The judges ordered that those sentenced under those laws were entitled to ask federal judges to reduce their sentences.
The Justice Department is now seeking to overturn that decision – which will be devastating news to many thousands like my original crack cocaine client. The Obama administration would surely condemn an oppressive foreign dictator's regime for the singular cruelty of declaring to its population that thousands of its citizens must continue to sit in prison for no good reason. The fact that few have even heard of the stunning position taken by President Obama is a sad reflection on how incurious mainstream US public opinion is about what underpins our mass incarceration society
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/23/us-v-blewett-obama-justice-department-shame#start-of-comments
Your links was terribly out of date. They were written in 2011, and are more than 2 years old. The Justice Department is trying now, at this time to overturn the Court of Appeals decision. What are you not getting here prosense?
---The Guardian's article I referenced on this topic was published Tuesday 23 July 2013.
---It was written by Alec Karakatsanis is a public defender and civil rights lawyer at the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia, where he litigates cases to reform the criminal justice system. He was recently awarded a grant by Harvard Law School to found a nonprofit civil rights organization called Equal Justice Under Law.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)15. Are you
"Your links was terribly out of date. They were written in 2011, and are more than 2 years old. The Justice Department is trying to overturn the Court of Appeals decision. What are you not getting here prosense?"
...disputing that the Obama administration pushed for and signed into law a fair sentencing law that included a retroactive period, and that law is still intact and being enforced?
Like I said, it took "America's first black president" to get this done.
Justice Is Served
http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/justice-served
Chance at Freedom: Retroactive Crack Sentence Reductions For Up to 12,000 May Begin Today
http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/chance-freedom-retroactive-crack-sentence-reductions-12000-may-begin-today
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)17. Still not getting it.
The article my OP references does state, and there is no argument Obama signed this bill.
Until President Obama signed the Fair Sentencing Act, on 3 August 2010, there had been, for over two decades, a 100:1 disparity in the quantities of drugs seized..snip
Justice NOT served to thousands
But that case did not decide the fate of any of the thousands of people already sitting in prison because of what all agree is an unfair law. For those people – sentenced, in some cases, just days or weeks before the Fair Sentencing Act was signed – our society's acknowledgment that they remain in prison for no good reason may not help them at all – because the government did not care to reduce their penalties retroactively when it declared them unjust.
Court of Appeals goes further - rules Fair Sentencing must be applied to all
Apparently so, until two months ago. On 17 May 2013, the US court of appeals for the sixth circuit held that the new, "fair" sentences must be applied to all those previously sentenced under laws that everyone acknowledges were discriminatory. The two-judge majority opinion wrote forcefully (pdf) and with unusual candor about the history of unequal treatment under the old laws. The judges ordered that those sentenced under those laws were entitled to ask federal judges to reduce their sentences.
Justice Department seeks to overturn Court of Appeals decision. Obama Admin to keep thousands of African-Americans in prison unjustly.
The Justice Department is now seeking to overturn that decision – which will be devastating news to many thousands like my original crack cocaine client. The Obama administration would surely condemn an oppressive foreign dictator's regime for the singular cruelty of declaring to its population that thousands of its citizens must continue to sit in prison for no good reason. The fact that few have even heard of the stunning position taken by President Obama is a sad reflection on how incurious mainstream US public opinion is about what underpins our mass incarceration society.
All excerpts: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/23/us-v-blewett-obama-justice-department-shame
Do you get it now?
cali
(114,904 posts)23. don't wear yourself out
sometimes people are deliberately obtuse, sometimes they're blinded by their own perspective and sometimes they've just boxed themselves into a corner.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)26. Yeah, you would know. n/t
cali
(114,904 posts)43. poor you. you really are acting like your back is against the wall and you're lashing out n/t
ProSense
(116,464 posts)44. Condescending you, desperate to feel superior.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)25. No, you don't "get it"
Your OP title is hyperbole.
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)37. You may not like it, but it is so.
Factually, you can not deny it.
Court of Appeals goes further - rules Fair Sentencing must be applied to allApparently so, until two months ago. On 17 May 2013, the US court of appeals for the sixth circuit held that the new, "fair" sentences must be applied to all those previously sentenced under laws that everyone acknowledges were discriminatory. The two-judge majority opinion wrote forcefully (pdf) and with unusual candor about the history of unequal treatment under the old laws. The judges ordered that those sentenced under those laws were entitled to ask federal judges to reduce their sentences.
Justice Department seeks to overturn Court of Appeals decision. Obama Admin to keep thousands of African-Americans in prison unjustly.The Justice Department is now seeking to overturn that decision – which will be devastating news to many thousands like my original crack cocaine client. The Obama administration would surely condemn an oppressive foreign dictator's regime for the singular cruelty of declaring to its population that thousands of its citizens must continue to sit in prison for no good reason. The fact that few have even heard of the stunning position taken by President Obama is a sad reflection on how incurious mainstream US public opinion is about what underpins our mass incarceration society.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/23/us-v-blewett-obama-justice-department-shame
I don't think I can help you anymore. You are unreasonable, and you ignore important facts that are not to your liking.
Bye/
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)33. Nobody is disputing that, for two reasons
1) It is true
2) It is not the topic of the OP
Unfortunately for some, useful link barrages have to be true AND relevant.
There was a little retro-activity in the law. The Supreme Court ended up expanding the retro-activity in the law more, but that retro-activity applies only to fairly recent events.
It does not apply to anyone who had already been sentenced.
bigtree
(86,005 posts)8. Obama hates black people
I read it on DU.
emulatorloo
(44,175 posts)28. Yes he must really really really hate black people.
Because I have never read any bullshit claims on DU before.
Hydra
(14,459 posts)36. Swing and a miss!
As usual
bemildred
(90,061 posts)9. The Drug War was a response to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
And Vietnam War resistance. Had to stop us from from voting somehow.
SamKnause
(13,110 posts)10. Crack
His destructive hypocrisy is nauseating.
How different his life would be if he had been arrested for marijuana and cocaine.
I'll never understand his mindset on this issue.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)13. Since "America's first black president" was the President to sign the FSA
"His destructive hypocrisy is nauseating. "
...it's not "hypocrisy." I mean, why did it take "America's first black president" to do this?
pinto
(106,886 posts)11. Here is the appeal for a review, 'en banc', i.e. by the full appellate court. And the legal arguments
http://sentencing.typepad.com/files/blewett_petition-for-rehearing.pdf
QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 applies to defendants sentenced prior to the date of enactment who seek a reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C § 3582(c)(2).
QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 applies to defendants sentenced prior to the date of enactment who seek a reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C § 3582(c)(2).
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)18. Thank you.
xocet
(3,871 posts)46. Here the rationale for the DOJ's appeal. The entire appeal and some commentary are at the link.
Crack Cocaine versus Powder Cocaine - Does The DOJ Prioritize Cost over Justice?
...
Case: 12-5226 Document: 006111708324 Filed: 05/31/2013 Page: 15
Clause because there was no intent or design to discriminate on a racial basis.”
Blewett, slip op. at 8. But the majority believed that, with current knowledge of
the racially discriminatory impact of the 100:1 ratio, construing the FSA not to
apply to final sentences would amount to intentional discrimination. See ibid.
(“Like slavery and Jim Crow laws, the intentional maintenance of discriminatory
sentences is a denial of equal protection.”). That analysis overlooks that a decision
not to apply the FSA retroactively would violate equal protection only if the
purpose of such a decision was itself discriminatory. Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442
U.S. 256 (1979), cited by the majority, makes that clear: “Discriminatory
purpose,” the Court said, “implies more than intent as volition or intent as
awareness of consequences. It implies that the decision maker, in this case a state
legislature, selected or reaffirmed a particular course of action at least in part
because of, not merely in spite of, its adverse effects upon an identifiable group.”
Id. at 279 (citation, footnotes, and internal quotation marks omitted; emphasis
added). No evidence suggests that Congress drew the line for the application of
the FSA at post-enactment sentencings, thereby leaving final sentences
undisturbed, for the purpose of perpetuating racially disparate effects. Rather, the
purpose of the FSA was to eradicate the unfairness of the 100:1 ratio in cases going
forward, while respecting finality interests in already-sentenced cases (where the
costs and disruption associated with resentencing are substantial). See United
10
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023327273
...
Case: 12-5226 Document: 006111708324 Filed: 05/31/2013 Page: 15
Clause because there was no intent or design to discriminate on a racial basis.”
Blewett, slip op. at 8. But the majority believed that, with current knowledge of
the racially discriminatory impact of the 100:1 ratio, construing the FSA not to
apply to final sentences would amount to intentional discrimination. See ibid.
(“Like slavery and Jim Crow laws, the intentional maintenance of discriminatory
sentences is a denial of equal protection.”). That analysis overlooks that a decision
not to apply the FSA retroactively would violate equal protection only if the
purpose of such a decision was itself discriminatory. Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442
U.S. 256 (1979), cited by the majority, makes that clear: “Discriminatory
purpose,” the Court said, “implies more than intent as volition or intent as
awareness of consequences. It implies that the decision maker, in this case a state
legislature, selected or reaffirmed a particular course of action at least in part
because of, not merely in spite of, its adverse effects upon an identifiable group.”
Id. at 279 (citation, footnotes, and internal quotation marks omitted; emphasis
added). No evidence suggests that Congress drew the line for the application of
the FSA at post-enactment sentencings, thereby leaving final sentences
undisturbed, for the purpose of perpetuating racially disparate effects. Rather, the
purpose of the FSA was to eradicate the unfairness of the 100:1 ratio in cases going
forward, while respecting finality interests in already-sentenced cases (where the
costs and disruption associated with resentencing are substantial). See United
10
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023327273
Go Vols
(5,902 posts)12. We lost out as #1 fattest nation last month
We can still claim the #1 spot for imprisoning more our own citizens per capita than any country on Earth though.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)16. 2 eightballs of crack is a "small amount"?
4 8's fit in a ping pong ball, so half of that is 2 8's, which isn't a "small amount" by any means, and is hard to sell as personal use.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)39. Half a ping pong ball's worth of crack isn't a small amount? It's a freaking quarter ounce.
Yeah, it's a small amount.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)40. Right, that's two eights
At half-gram rocks that's 32.
Then again I think cocaine should be legal.
forestpath
(3,102 posts)19. Seems like the only ones Obama doesn't want locked up are bankers and CEOs.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)29. And war criminals?
forestpath
(3,102 posts)31. Yeah, those too.
Hydra
(14,459 posts)38. Don't forget the NSA and Booz Allen n/t
forestpath
(3,102 posts)45. Yes, they are protected.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)20. So as a black woman, does that mean I get to revoke his
"black card"? Oh noes!! Obammy hates us kneee-grows! Whutz we gon' do, massuh?
Response to avaistheone1 (Original post)
ieoeja This message was self-deleted by its author.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)22. And so my question would be, how do we all know that
the DOJ is NOT reviewing these old cases? We're just assuming that said "black president" and his "black attorney general" are not demonstrating how black they are because they are not acting on this issue? But we don't know that. All we're seeing is the OPs article. We don't know if a review is already underway, is planning to get underway, or whatever.
And ProSense posed a great question:
Why all the double standards placed on this president? Why didn't Bush II or Clinton address these issues? We're laying all this shit at this president's feet. We don't even allow this guy time to breath before we find yet another issue to bash him on. Geez. He doesn't get a break at all. Not from the right. Not from the left. Or the middle. Nowhere. It's ridiculous!
The "black tax" in full effect!!!
okieinpain
(9,397 posts)24. lol, don't do crack, smoke weed. n/t.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)27. Obama really is white. This is the reason why.
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)30. Wow, the Obama administration took time out from prosecuting whistleblowers and medical marijuana
users to re-stick it to one of two groups of cocaine users. Don't tell me they can't multitask!
Catherina
(35,568 posts)32. This is so sad and shameful. No money for schools or social services
but plenty of money for for-profit prisons, surveillance and war.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)34. The why is obvious; fear.
Fear that the Democratic Party will be made once again, as we were in the 1980's, to be soft on crime. That claim, while untrue did hurt us. So now people who have screwed up sentences will have to suffer, all so we Democrats can look tough on crime. Look how tough we are on crime, we'll keep up the crap that those before us did. We're even considering Police Commissioner Stop and Frisk for the top job at Homeland Security. We're sure he can bring the same effectiveness to Homeland Security that he brought o the NYPD.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)42. If Obama wants to appear tough on crime, he should go after Dimon, Blankfein and Cheney. nt
!!
