Justices: Judges can slash crack sentences

[Gan]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that federal judges have the discretion to give "reasonably" shorter prison terms for crack-cocaine crimes to reduce the disparity with crimes involving cocaine powder.

more..

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/12/10/scotus.crack.cocaine/index.html
_____________________________________________-

Wonder if this will drive up sales and distribution.

:whistle:

[TheEschaton]

Wait, so the Supreme Court, the most conservative one since before the Warren Court....agrees with Daniel and I?


Funny, that.

-TheE-

[Clove]

Wait, so the Supreme Court, the most conservative one since before the Warren Court....agrees with Daniel and I?


Funny, that.

-TheE-

I'm just curious, does their agreement strengthen or weaken your argument?

[TheEschaton]

I said (and I believe Daniel said) that crack sentences are too harsh and unfairly prejudicial. The Supreme Court agreed, and held that statutorily mandated sentencing guidelines were unconstitutional on crack, saying that judges could sentence people using their own discretion.

I haven't read the opinion yet, but I imagine this opens up a challenge to mandatory minimums. Ginsburg wrote it, I'll probably read it after finals are over.

-TheE-

[Gan]

The Supreme Court on Monday gave federal judges new authority to set sentences for crack cocaine crimes below the range of punishment set by federal guidelines — a major restoration of flexibility for trial judges in drug cases. It ruled 7-2 that the federal guidelines on sentencing for cocaine violations are advisory only, rejecting a lower court ruling that they are effectively mandatory. Judges must consider the Guideline range for a cocaine violation, the Court said, but may conclude that they are too harsh and may sentence below the range by considering the wide disparity between the recommended punishment for crack cocaine and cocaine in powder form. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the decision in Kimbrough v. U.S. (06-6330).

The ruling validates the view of the U.S. Sentencing Commission that the 100-to-1 crack v. powder cocaine disparity may exaggerate the seriousness of crack crimes. The Court decision Monday rejected the Bush Administration argument that, because Congress had written the ratio into federal law, federal judges could not depart from it. The law, the Court concluded, only sets maximum and minimum sentences. “The statute says nothing about appropriate sentences within these brackets, and this Court declines to read any implicit directive into the congressional silence,” it declared.

The decision does not mean that crack cocaine crimes must be punished the same as powder cocaine crimes, but it does allow trial judges to disagree with the Guidelines’ much heavier recommendations for punishment of crack crimes. The decision also does not disturb the 100-to-1 ratio as it is spelled out in federal law (as opposed to the Guidelines); that ratio still applies at the minimum level of quantities of drugs involved in a given crime. Some 70 percent of those convicted of crack cocaines get the minimum sentence, many as a result of plea bargains. Above that level, though, the new ruling gives trial judges considerable range of choice, case by case.

Ruling in a second Guidelines case, Gall v. U.S. (06-7949), the Court — also by a 7-2 vote — cleared the way for judges to impose sentences below the specified range and still have such punishment regarded as “reasonable.” The Justices, in an opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens, told federal appeals courts to use a “deferential abuse-of-discretion standard” even when a trial sets sets a punishment below the range. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., announced that opinion in Stevens’ absence.

The Gall decision overturned a ruling by the Eighth Circuit Court that a below-Guidelines sentence would be reasonable only if justified by “extraordinary circumstances.” It was not for the Circuit Court to decide de novo the issue of whether a variation from a Guideline range was justified, it said.

In the last of three rulings on Monday, the Court decided unanimously that one does not “use” a gun, for purposes of imposing a mandatory five-year federal sentence, if the person receives the gun in a trade for drugs. Justice David H. Souter wrote the opinion in Watson v. U.S. (06-571). “The Government may say that a person ‘uses’ a firearm simply by receiving it in a barter transaction, but no one else would. A boy who trades an apple to get a granola bar is sensibly said to use the apple, but one would never guess which way this commerce actually flowed from hearing that the boy used the granola,” Souter wrote.

The Kimbrough ruling on punishing crack cocaine offenses marks a major shift in the debate that has raged for 21 years over the much more severe sentencing required for those whose crimes involved crack cocaine. The Sentencing Commission for years asked Congress to ease the 100-to-1 ratio, and usually failed, but only recently gained some flexibility to vary the Guideline range outside that ratio. The disparity in punishment has often been challenged as racially oriented, because black offenders more often are involved in possessing or distributing crack than powder. Justice Ginsburg noted that 85 percent of those punished for crack crimes in federal court are black.

The 100-to-1 ratio is keyed to the quantity of the cocaine involved in the crime. As Justice Ginsburg explained it in practical effect: “a dealer in crack cocaine was subject to the same sentence range as a dealer in 100 times more powder cocaine.” On effect of this, Ginsburg noted, is “that a major supplier of powder cocaine may receive a shorter sentence than a low-level dealer who buys powder from the supplier but then converts it to crack.” The 100-to-1 Guidelines disparity has been somewhat relaxed as of Nov. 1 by the Sentencing Commission. The Commission is now pondering whether to make the reduced range retroactive. The change, allowed by Congress, would generally result in crack sentences between two and five times longer than for equal amounts of powder, rather than 100 times longer. With Monday’s decision, even that reduction is not binding on federal judges.

The Court’s ruling, besides shoring up the Sentencing Commission’s criticism of crack punishment, also bolsters federal trial judges who in recent months have been experimenting with easing up on crack cocaine sentences. Whether this was a valid use of their authority, because it might and does result in below-Guidelines sentences, was the issue the Court decided in Kimbrough.

The Gall case also involved a question of below-Guidelines sentencing, but was broader than the cocaine controversy. The issue there was whether any federal sentence that fell below a Guideline floor was valid if it was not supported by “extraordinary circumstances.”

The vote supporting the final outcome was the same in both sentencing cases: Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Ginsburg, Stevens, Stephen G. Breyer, Anthony M. Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and David H. Souter in the majority, Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr., and Clarence Thomas in dissent. Scalia wrote a separate concurring opinion in Kimbrough, and he and Souter wrote separate concurring opinions in Gall.

In the case of Derrick Kimbrough of Norfolk, Va., a federal judge found the sentence dictated by the Guideline range and the crack-powder disparity to be “ridiculous,” and imposed a sentence of 15 years, which was 4 1/2 years below the bottom of the range for his crime — conspiracy with intent to distribute and possession with intent to distribute crack. The Court said on Monday that the judge’s sentence “should survive appellate inspection.”

In the case of Brian Michael Gall, a young man who dealt the illegal drug “ecstasy” while in college in Iowa but went straight after giving up drugs and going into business in Arizona and Colorado, gave himself up and pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute the drug. The Guideline range for his crime was 30 to 37 months in prison, but the federal judge gave him 36 months on probation, largely based on his more recent behavior. The Court said that it found this sentence to be “reasoned and reasonable,” and thus reversed the Eighth Circuit ruling that it was not.

The Court issued its three rulings on the merits after issuing orders for the day. Among cases denied review was an appeal challenging the validity of a federal budget bill that passed the House and Senate in different forms (Public Citizen v. Clerk, District Court, 07-141) — a challenge rejected in a lower court; an appeal by a Virginia city government urging the Court to rule that a government agency must take affirmative stgeps to publicize the reasons for firing an employee before that worker has a right to a hearing to clear his name (Newport News v. Sciolito, 07-159), and an appeal by a California prison warden urging the Court to impose a tough standard of proof for state prison inmates claiming to be innocent of their crimes and seeking an evidentiary hearing on the claim in federal court (Marshall v. Henry, 07-199).

The Court’s next chance to issue orders granting and denying new cases will be on Jan. 7 after a holiday recess. The next opportunity for decisions on the merits is Jan. 8.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/court-eases-cocaine-sentencing/

[Daniel]

Current Crack sentencing guidelines are in line with what they should be. If black people didn't commit more crimes then whites, they wouldn't be in jail as much. Al Sharpton has obviously infiltrated the supreme court

[TheEschaton]

At least we can give kudos to Gan for posting what can be seen as a liberal victory. I was about to post it myself, and then saw that it was already posted. A pleasant surprise indeed. ;)

[Gan]

Thank God Bush nominated all those liberal judges...

[Warriorbird]

It's funny the permutations that judges go through. Strict constructionist and judicial activist aren't really political ideas.

[Gan]

This is going to require more reading to see what exactly the SCOTUS ruled on.



The decision does not mean that crack cocaine crimes must be punished the same as powder cocaine crimes, but it does allow trial judges to disagree with the Guidelines’ much heavier recommendations for punishment of crack crimes. The decision also does not disturb the 100-to-1 ratio as it is spelled out in federal law (as opposed to the Guidelines); that ratio still applies at the minimum level of quantities of drugs involved in a given crime. Some 70 percent of those convicted of crack cocaines get the minimum sentence, many as a result of plea bargains. Above that level, though, the new ruling gives trial judges considerable range of choice, case by case.

Its almost as if they're ruling on a technicality rather than the premise that has everyone up in arms about. At least thats what I'm getting thus far. I'll go back later on and read the actual opinion, for now the blog summary will have to suffice.

[Daniel]

That's all law ever is. A technicality.

However, in effect. It frees judges from having to adhere to the congressional mandates. This of course won't mean anything if the judges continue to sentence along those lines. However, considering that one of the bodies that testified from the commission report for reducing the disparity, represented federal judges I'd chalk this up as a win.

[Gan]

Well of course you'll chalk this up as a win.

*
For the record.

I agree with both rulings. Where I dont think its a victory for you, Daniel, is that the crack sentencing guidelines are racially motivated. Nothing in the summaries on the blog indicate to a racial basis or effect.

A win is a win though.

I think Judges should have in their rule of authority to impose sentences beyond the parameters of the sentencing guidelines simply because the guidelines are not infallable nor can they ever be written to take into effect all the extenuating and mitigating circumstances involved in that particular case/trial. A judge has the best position to dictate to that effect. This applies in effect for both the Gall case and the Kimbrough case.

[TheEschaton]

I find it interesting that Scalia was in the majority, as he is usually adamently against "judicial activism", and all about upholding laws as they are enacted.

Although, maybe he's arguing sentencing discretion is a fundamental role of a judge, whereas the legal guidelines were just that, guidelines, and not "effectively mandatory" as the Appeals court said.

-TheE-

[Daniel]

Well of course you'll chalk this up as a win.


As opposed to what?

You expect me to wait for the supreme court to flat out say "Crack cocaine guidelines are racist?"

Okay. I may not have won that.

However, if you think that the fact that 85% of the people caught up in this ratio are black had nothing to do with the decision in *this* particular case, then I don't know what to tell you.

The reality of this is that now Judges can take the circumstances of the crime into consideration before handing down a ruling. This means that someone who got caught up in a bad situation is not going to spend a mandatory about of time in the pen because some idiot in congress thinks that all crack distribution requires shooting someone in the face.

Will it still suck? Of course, but it goes a long way.




*
For the record.

I agree with both rulings. Where I dont think its a victory for you, Daniel, is that the crack sentencing guidelines are racially motivated. Nothing in the summaries on the blog indicate to a racial basis or effect.

A win is a win though.

I think Judges should have in their rule of authority to impose sentences beyond the parameters of the sentencing guidelines simply because the guidelines are not infallable nor can they ever be written to take into effect all the extenuating and mitigating circumstances involved in that particular case/trial. A judge has the best position to dictate to that effect. This applies in effect for both the Gall case and the Kimbrough case.[/QUOTE]

Well, just as an FYI, the sentencing commission has long tried to tie crack cocaine arrests to these same extenuating and mitigating circumstances and have been turned down everytime. As noted in the opinion, they tried (unsuccessfully) to make the ratio even in 1995, and then later amended it to 2 to 1 with express stipulations for mititgating factors, again unsuccessfully.

I wonder what you would conjecture is the reason for that? (Honest question)

[Gan]

As opposed to what?

You expect me to wait for the supreme court to flat out say "Crack cocaine guidelines are racist?"

Okay. I may not have won that.
You're welcome.


However, if you think that the fact that 85% of the people caught up in this ratio are black had nothing to do with the decision in *this* particular case, then I don't know what to tell you. Nothing more than what you've already said, that its all whitey's fault. We know, we know, you have banged on that drum for a while now. This is where I disagree with you. I do not think the law was specifically set up to be racial in nature. I dont buy the conspiracy. Go sell it elsewhere.


The reality of this is that now Judges can take the circumstances of the crime into consideration before handing down a ruling. This means that someone who got caught up in a bad situation is not going to spend a mandatory about of time in the pen because some idiot in congress thinks that all crack distribution requires shooting someone in the face. Agreed, and thats what I said in a previous post. Thanks for the confirmation.

Will it still suck? Of course, but it goes a long way. In what way will it suck?

Basically the ruling will equate to a 17% decrease in time sentenced as it pertains to being handed down retroactively. So per the NPR article I just heard on the radio tonight, it will mean a reduction in sentence from 12.5 years to 10 years.

I'll agree with the idiot in Congress remark.





*
For the record.

I agree with both rulings. Where I dont think its a victory for you, Daniel, is that the crack sentencing guidelines are racially motivated. Nothing in the summaries on the blog indicate to a racial basis or effect.

A win is a win though.

I think Judges should have in their rule of authority to impose sentences beyond the parameters of the sentencing guidelines simply because the guidelines are not infallable nor can they ever be written to take into effect all the extenuating and mitigating circumstances involved in that particular case/trial. A judge has the best position to dictate to that effect. This applies in effect for both the Gall case and the Kimbrough case.
You missed a quote bracket there...



Well, just as an FYI, the sentencing commission has long tried to tie crack cocaine arrests to these same extenuating and mitigating circumstances and have been turned down everytime. As noted in the opinion, they tried (unsuccessfully) to make the ratio even in 1995, and then later amended it to 2 to 1 with express stipulations for mititgating factors, again unsuccessfully. I wonder what you would conjecture is the reason for that? (Honest question)
Looks to me like the reason they were turned down was an unwillingness to interfere/contradict with the Federal law/guidelines.

[Daniel]

Nothing more than what you've already said, that its all whitey's fault. We know, we know, you have banged on that drum for a while now. This is where I disagree with you. I do not think the law was specifically set up to be racial in nature. I dont buy the conspiracy. Go sell it elsewhere.


This is where you and the rest of the R team fail to take anything I say at face value. I've never claimed that the law was a deliberate attempt to marginalize African Americans, nor have I claimed that all the problems with the black community are "whitey's fault".

However, baring that, it does not follow that there are not things in this country that marginalize African Americans.

If you recall ( I bet you don't) I first brought this up in response to PB because he claimed that there was nothing that negatively effected the black community in America and that everything was their own fault.

This is a perfect illustration of how there are still racial problems in America. That doesn't mean that alot hasn't been fixed, or that they in time won't be fixed. However, it's necessary to acknowledge them when they do. So that they can be fixed.

Speaking of the R Team...

Where is the rest of your buddies who thought it was so fun and cool to jump up my ass before? What's the matter? You can't troll against the supreme court? qq.

Clove? 87500? ParkBandit? That other guy who likes to jump into the fracas whose name I can't recall?

No comments on a judge ruling that it is unreasonable to sentence someone based upon arbitrary mandatory sentences and the supreme court agreeing with him?

No comments on how black america brings it on itself by committing more crimes?

I guess the internet wasn't as serious business as I thought.





Looks to me like the reason they were turned down was an unwillingness to interfere/contradict with the Federal law/guidelines.

Oh really?

And what would make you think that?

The fact that A) The made the law in the first place? or B) That they are the only ones who can change it?

Doesn't quite make sense there.

Don't worry. I'm used to it.

[Gan]

This is where you and the rest of the R team fail to take anything I say at face value. I've never claimed that the law was a deliberate attempt to marginalize African Americans, nor have I claimed that all the problems with the black community are "whitey's fault".
Wha, really? Do we need to go back and pull some of your posts where you outright state or infer that its racisim thats keeping the black community down? Where its not their fault that they have to steal, its because of racism (read: whitey). Sorry if I still dont buy you QQ'ing about that.


However, baring that, it does not follow that there are not things in this country that marginalize African Americans.
I've never said that racism did NOT exist. I've repeatedly stated that it does not exist to the extent that you argue it does. I furthermore stated that in the professional world the risk is too high for large successful corporations to engage in such behavior, therefore 99% of them dont. Reading comprehension FTW.


If you recall ( I bet you don't) I first brought this up in response to PB because he claimed that there was nothing that negatively effected the black community in America and that everything was their own fault.
If you say so. I'll let PB refute that since its his words, not mine.


This is a perfect illustration of how there are still racial problems in America. That doesn't mean that alot hasn't been fixed, or that they in time won't be fixed. However, it's necessary to acknowledge them when they do. So that they can be fixed.
Yea, a perfect illustration like a black fireman hanging a noose and a racial note in his locker in order to mask his own failures. Thanks for the clarification. Really.



Speaking of the R Team...

Where is the rest of your buddies who thought it was so fun and cool to jump up my ass before? What's the matter? You can't troll against the supreme court? qq.
Funny, I actually supported the ruling of SCOTUS. I just find its ruling based on something other than racism. Which contracdicts your viewpoint.



Clove? 87500? ParkBandit? That other guy who likes to jump into the fracas whose name I can't recall?
I'll let them chime in, since obviously you're attempting to group your aggressors in hopes of playing the sympathy vote for getting spanked.



No comments on a judge ruling that it is unreasonable to sentence someone based upon arbitrary mandatory sentences and the supreme court agreeing with him?
No comment on the reason why the judge ruled it unreasonable? I dont distinctly recall that he said it was because the guidelines were racist. Do you?


No comments on how black america brings it on itself by committing more crimes?
Hey, you're the statistician, whip up some numbers for us, be sure to include your sources. ;)


I guess the internet wasn't as serious business as I thought.
Only the entertainment value you provide can be construed as business, but I wouldnt call it serious by any means.




And what would make you think that?
Because the article fucking said it?



The fact that A) The made the law in the first place? or B) That they are the only ones who can change it?
CONSIPRACY TIME!!! EVERYONE GET OUT THE TIN FOIL HATS!!!11111



Doesn't quite make sense there.

Don't worry. I'm used to it.
And we're used to you not understanding things that should make sense to you to begin with. But dont worry though, the internet isnt as serious a business as you initially thought it was.

:lol:

[Celephais]

I think most of us who were in the other thread are just tired of it...

Besides Gan seems to be pointing out a lot of pretty good points, judges aren't really supposed to be overturning laws, they're supposed to be interpreting the laws, unless I've got our whole governmental system down wrong. These unsuccessful attempts to overturn the manditory guidelines, were they done through legislation attempts or the courts? If it's not legislation then as Gan said, makes sense they've failed.

I don't know the wording on the law (nor care to), but if there is a technicality in the wording that lets them use it as guidelines then this is really the best you can hope for, because "interpreting" it to not mean "the letter and meaning" of the law would be pretty fucked up.

[Gan]

All the jawing aside, even if it is entertaining...

When was this sentencing guideline enacted by Congress, who were the sponsors, and what was the reasoning behind the disparity between crack and powder cocaine.

Anyone have this earmarked somewhere?

[Daniel]

I think most of us who were in the other thread are just tired of it...

Besides Gan seems to be pointing out a lot of pretty good points, judges aren't really supposed to be overturning laws, they're supposed to be interpreting the laws, unless I've got our whole governmental system down wrong. These unsuccessful attempts to overturn the manditory guidelines, were they done through legislation attempts or the courts? If it's not legislation then as Gan said, makes sense they've failed.

I don't know the wording on the law (nor care to), but if there is a technicality in the wording that lets them use it as guidelines then this is really the best you can hope for, because "interpreting" it to not mean "the letter and meaning" of the law would be pretty fucked up.


It was legislation.

It's kind of hard to be tired of something when you don't know shit about it.

So please. Go sit down somewhere.

[Daniel]

Wha, really? Do we need to go back and pull some of your posts where you outright state or infer that its racisim thats keeping the black community down? Where its not their fault that they have to steal, its because of racism (read: whitey). Sorry if I still dont buy you QQ'ing about that.

Go ahead.

Please took up the word of racism while you are at.




I've never said that racism did NOT exist. I've repeatedly stated that it does not exist to the extent that you argue it does. I furthermore stated that in the professional world the risk is too high for large successful corporations to engage in such behavior, therefore 99% of them dont. Reading comprehension FTW.


I agree with the second point, and have said as much before. The first is your opinon.




Yea, a perfect illustration like a black fireman hanging a noose and a racial note in his locker in order to mask his own failures. Thanks for the clarification. Really.



I'm sorry? What did I say in response to that?




Funny, I actually supported the ruling of SCOTUS. I just find its ruling based on something other than racism. Which contracdicts your viewpoint.


The SP does not rule on Racism. As I've said.



I'll let them chime in, since obviously you're attempting to group your aggressors in hopes of playing the sympathy vote for getting spanked.


Spanked? Lol .




No comment on the reason why the judge ruled it unreasonable? I dont distinctly recall that he said it was because the guidelines were racist. Do you?

Actually, I do believe that the scotus specifically mentioned the sentencing commissions report which states among other things that these laws disporportionately effect blacks.

I'll chalk that up to you not reading the whole thing.


Hey, you're the statistician, whip up some numbers for us, be sure to include your sources. ;)


I've been waiting for PB to provide those for some time. Somehow, he's ignored that the entire time.




Because the article fucking said it? CONSIPRACY TIME!!! EVERYONE GET OUT THE TIN FOIL HATS!!!11111


Where? The article specifically said that the sentencing commissions has approached congress of several occasions to either a) do away with the ratio or B) amend the laws. They were denied *by* *congress*

But I guess pointin that out is a conspiracy.








And we're used to you not understanding things that should make sense to you to begin with. But dont worry though, the internet isnt as serious a business as you initially thought it was.

:lol:

:lol:

[875000]

Speaking of the R Team...

Where is the rest of your buddies who thought it was so fun and cool to jump up my ass before? What's the matter? You can't troll against the supreme court? qq.

Clove? 87500? ParkBandit? That other guy who likes to jump into the fracas whose name I can't recall?

Well, to answer your question, I was working at a client site until about 60 minutes or so ago before I posted this, and only saw the thread within the last few minutes. So, you will have to excuse the lack of an immediate response.

However, to address your points:

1. The Supreme Court never said that crack sentencing was motivated by racism
2. The Supreme Court did not say that crack sentancing needed to be equal to the sentancing for powerder cocaine. In fact, Gan's article even pointed that out
3. In the prior post I never tried to argue that a 100-1 ratio was appropriate, and instead just focused on whether that report you cited claimed that crack laws were racially motivated and should be the equal to power cocaine. So, it makes little sense for me to condem the Supreme Court over this.
4. Congress -- who that aforementioned report was aimed at -- never intervened on it or any of its predecessors, so my contention that the report was an "old hat" still is accurate.
5. Gan already made most of the points I would have.


This is where you and the rest of the R team fail to take anything I say at face value. I've never claimed that the law was a deliberate attempt to marginalize African Americans, nor have I claimed that all the problems with the black community are "whitey's fault".

Let's start counting the ways ...


You expect me to wait for the supreme court to flat out say "Crack cocaine guidelines are racist?"



A few times on these boards we have gotten into discussions over whether or not there is an inherent racism in the judicial system. This stems from the fact that the vast majority of inhabitants of the federal judicial system are black, despite being a minority population. I've heard such things as "black people commit more crimes, etc etc."

Well..apparently, the U.S. Sentencing committee and several other legal entities disagree.



So.. the whole penalties imposed on crack convictions are there, just because they are black and all legislators are white.

Yea... Yea. Imagine that. Marginalized based on color exists in America. Crazy notion.


Your inability to read between the lines is astounding. The very fact that they allowed people to posit these fews and took them into consideration shows that there is a obvious racial bias to the disparity.

The fact that it is unable to be scientifically evaluated "Hey, sir can we measure your racism", means that they can not put forth that position.

Then, at about post #116 on that thread, you tried to weasel out of your prior statements and take the paradoxical position that something could be racist yet not be motivated by racism. Which would have been about the point that I realized I was arguing with someone who duplicitous, mentally ill, and/or functionally illiterate, and stopped reading the thread. So, there might be more statements by you, but I am not really going to spend much time trying to find them.

[Daniel]

All the jawing aside, even if it is entertaining...

When was this sentencing guideline enacted by Congress, who were the sponsors, and what was the reasoning behind the disparity between crack and powder cocaine.

Anyone have this earmarked somewhere?

It was enacted in the early 80's under the assumption that crack cocaine distribution implicitly had a bigger effect than regular cocaine.

The setencing commission in its follow up evaluations have found that a) This is not as strong as initially believed, B) increased minimums for crack cocaine does not punish the intended targets of these laws and C) that they disporportionately effect African Americans and other minorities.

Because of this, they have approached congress on several occasions to repeal the ratio or to dramatically cut it down. They have failed on all counts. Even when they introduced reccomendations that would take into account the various mitigating factors that the original legislators were afraid of (i.e. violence being apart of the crime) they were shot down.

As I asked you before, and you did not answer: Why do you think congress has done this? What is their justification?

Undoubtedly I have presented a very biased account of events. What contradicts my assertations? Can you point to research that counters the claims of the sentencing commission?

I'm seriously looking for an answer.

[Daniel]

Then, at about post #116 on that thread, you tried to weasel out of your prior statements and take the paradoxical position that something could be racist yet not be motivated by racism. Which would have been about the point that I realized I was arguing with someone who duplicitous, mentally ill, and/or functionally illiterate, and stopped reading the thread. So, there might be more statements by you, but I am not really going to spend much time trying to find them.

Hence your problem. There can be something that negatively effects a group of people without overt intent. I'm sorry you fail to grasp that simple concept. Just the same, I can point out that whites are more privledged than blacks in general terms and not hate white people. It's amazing how objectivity works.

[Gan]

It was enacted in the early 80's under the assumption that crack cocaine distribution implicitly had a bigger effect than regular cocaine.

The setencing commission in its follow up evaluations have found that a) This is not as strong as initially believed, B) increased minimums for crack cocaine does not punish the intended targets of these laws and C) that they disporportionately effect African Americans and other minorities.

Because of this, they have approached congress on several occasions to repeal the ratio or to dramatically cut it down. They have failed on all counts. Even when they introduced reccomendations that would take into account the various mitigating factors that the original legislators were afraid of (i.e. violence being apart of the crime) they were shot down.
I'm looking for specifics and sources, not advocate rehtoric. Reading comprehension FTW.



As I asked you before, and you did not answer: Why do you think congress has done this? What is their justification?
My previous post to this one should have been your first clue.



Undoubtedly I have presented a very biased account of events. What contradicts my assertations? Can you point to research that counters the claims of the sentencing commission?
Did the sentencing comission deem the disparity racial in nature? If so, then the SCOTUS ruling seems to contradict that very premise. Aside from that, I"m interested in looking at how the guidelines came about, who enacted them, and their official justification/reasoning behind them. Since you seem to be satisfied with second hand sources, you'll just have to wait for me to find a first hand account of what really went down.


I'm seriously looking for an answer.
If you were really serious, then you would have already done the historical legwork on where the guidelines came from, who sponsored them, who voted on them, and the language supporting them. Lacking that... yea, that about sums it up eh?

I'll let you know when I find something.

[Daniel]

Your inability to understand english is astounding.



Racism:

Prejudice or discrimination based on an individual's race; can be expressed individually or through institutional policies or practices. ...

Let's keep that in mind.

I said:
A few times on these boards we have gotten into discussions over whether or not there is an inherent racism in the judicial system

Which wold imply that there is some sort of prejudice....in the SYSTEM.

Not that there are a cabal of white people intend on keeping the black man down.

However, you infer that as:
In the prior post I never tried to argue that a 100-1 ratio was appropriate, and instead just focused on whether that report you cited claimed that crack laws were racially motivated and should be the equal to power cocaine.

Hmmm. Who can't read again?

[Daniel]

I'm looking for specifics and sources, not advocate rehtoric. Reading comprehension FTW.


The SCOTUS referenced the U.S. Sentencing commissions report heavily in their decision...

Everything I just said came out of the opinion...


Well, I guess you consider the SCOTUS and the U.S. sentencing commissions as "advocate rhetoric".

In which case, there isn't much I can tell you.

[Gan]

Just the same, I can point out that whites are more privledged than blacks in general terms and not hate white people. It's amazing how objectivity works.

Ahh, so you can have racist ideals, just not hate those of another color, and it not be called racism. Riiiiiight.

If it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, and quacks like a duck.....

[Daniel]

Ahh, so you can have racist ideals, just not hate those of another color, and it not be called racism. Riiiiiight.

If it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, and quacks like a duck.....

Um... pointing out privledge is racist? Yet, having laws that, in practice, significantly afffect one race over another is not?


Interesting.

[Gan]

Um... pointing out privledge is racist? Yet, having laws that, in practice, significantly afffect one race over another is not?


Interesting.

Were the laws specifically designed to be racial in nature? Were the authors of said legislation racist? Was the end goal of the law to be discriminatory?

Is the law discriminatory because a demographic of society fell into it for other reasons? Does that justify a lessening of the laws, simply because its perceived to be unfair to one class instead of another because of the propensity for one class to engage in illegal activities than another?

You're starting to remind me of Don Quixote tilting at windmills.

I'll have some information for you shortly, I've found a source for where this all started from.

[Daniel]

So pointing out privledge is racist?

Are you saying MLK was racist? cuz I'm sure he did that alot.



Were the laws specifically designed to be racial in nature? Were the authors of said legislation racist? Was the end goal of the law to be discriminatory?

It doesn't well matter if that is the effect.




Does that justify a lessening of the laws, simply because its perceived to be unfair to one class instead of another because of the propensity for one class to engage in illegal activities than another?

Source.




You're starting to remind me of Don Quixote tilting at windmills.

I'll have some information for you shortly, I've found a source for where this all started from.


K. I'm heading home. While you are referencing the source, please look at the U.S. Sentencing commissions statements on the validity of those claims years later. It'll save yourself some time.

[875000]

Hence your problem. There can be something that negatively effects a group of people without overt intent. I'm sorry you fail to grasp that simple concept.

Oh, I understand the concept. It is just that what that happens it is not called "racism" or "racist."

More whites are incarcerated than African Americans over white-collar crimes. Are laws outlawing white-collar crimes racist?

I am probably going to regret doing this, given your past history of reading something and not comprehending its meaning. The meaning of racism:


As racism carries references to race-based prejudice, violence, or oppression, the term has varying and often hotly contested definitions. Racialism is a related term intended to avoid these negative meanings. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, racism is a belief or ideology that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially to distinguish it as being either superior or inferior to another race or races. The Merriam-Webster's Webster's Dictionary defines racism as a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race, and that it is also the prejudice based on such a belief. The Macquarie Dictionary defines racism thus: the belief that human races have distinctive characteristics which determine their respective cultures, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule or dominate others.


Legal definition

According to UN International Conventions, "the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

[Daniel]

Oh, I understand the concept. It is just that what that happens it is not called "racism" or "racist."



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

It's not?



Institutional racism is distinguished from the bigotry or racial bias of individuals by the existence of systematic policies and practices within the institution, that have the effect of disadvantaging certain racial or ethnic groups

Notice the lack of "intent" and the emphasis on "effect".

You can find the source in the link you provided. Thanks for playing.

[875000]

Prejudice or discrimination based on an individual's race; can be expressed individually or through institutional policies or practices. ...


Entry Word: base
Function: verb
Text: to find a basis <she based her argument against the death penalty on careful research>
Synonyms ground, predicate, rest

Related Wordsestablish, found; assume, postulate, premise, presume, presuppose, suppose

http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus

[Daniel]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus

Yes.

My point: Black people are more effected by these laws than white people.

Problem?

[Gan]

Where did this all start from? - Anti Drug Abuse Act of 1988.

What were the actuall recommended guidelines?



For cocaine (Schedule II):
For 500-4,999 grams mixture:
First offense, not less than 5 years and not more than 40 years. If death or serious injury, not less than 20 or more than life. Fine of not more than $2 million if an individual, $5 million if other than an individual.
Second offense, not less than 10 years and not more than life. If death or serious injury, not less than life. Fine of not more than $4 million if an individual, $10 million if other than an individual.


For 5 kilograms or more mixture:
First offense, not less than 10 years and not more than life. If death or serious injury, not less than 20 years or more than life. Fine of not more than $4 million if an individual, $10 million if other than an individual.
Second offense, not less than 20 years and not more than life. If death or serious injury, not less than life. Fine of not more than $8 million if an individual, $20 million if other than an individual.
Third offense or more, life imprisonment.


For cocaine base (Schedule II):
For 5-49 grams mixture:
First offense, not less than 5 years and not more than 40 years. If death or serious injury, not less than 20 or more than life. Fine of not more than $2 million if an individual, $5 million if other than an individual.
Second offense, not less than 10 years and not more than life. If death or serious injury, not less than life. Fine of not more than $4 million if an individual, $10 million if other than an individual.


For 50 grams or more mixture:
First offense, not less than 10 years and not more than life. If death or serious injury, not less than 20 years or more than life. Fine of not more than $4 million if an individual, $10 million if other than an individual.
Second offense, not less than 20 years and not more than life. If death or serious injury, not less than life. Fine of not more than $8 million if an individual, $20 million if other than an individual.
Third offense or more, life imprisonment.

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/abuse/1-csa.htm



Effective November 1, 1993, the Sentencing Commission amended the sentencing guidelines to reflect its understanding of congressional intent: for purposes of the guidelines, cocaine base means crack cocaine. See United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual 2D1.1(c) (Nov. 1, 1993). The amended guideline reads: "'Cocaine base,' for the purpose of this guideline, means 'crack.' 'Crack' is the street name for a form of cocaine base, usually prepared by processing cocaine hydrochloride and sodium bicarbonate, and usually appearing in a lumpy, rocklike form."

http://www.ussc.gov/crack/APPNDXC.HTM

Should the guidelines be repealed based on Equal Protection?
Why was crack cocaine given a different classification than powder cocaine?


As one court explained, "[a]bsent a racially discriminatory purpose, explicit or inferable, on the part of the law maker or law enforcer, the statutory distinction is subject only to rational basis review." United States v. Frazier, 981 F.2d 92, 95 (3d Cir. 1992) (citing Personnel Administrator v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979) and Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976)), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 1661 (1993). Even if the legislature were aware that the statute would have a racially disparate impact, the statute is not invalid if that awareness was not a causal factor in its enactment. Frazier, 981 F.2d at 95; see Feeney, 442 U.S. at 279.

Applying this standard, federal courts generally have upheld the 100-to-1 quantity ratio by holding that Congress and the Commission had a rational basis for the penalty distinction. In so doing, these courts found that the distinction drawn between crack cocaine and powder cocaine for penalty purposes was not motivated by racial animus or discriminatory intent. Rather, it was related to the legitimate congressional objective of protecting the public against a new and highly potent, addictive narcotic that could be distributed easily and sold cheaply. See, e.g., United States v. King, 972 F.2d 1259, 1260 (11th Cir. 1992); United States v. Turner, 928 F.2d 956 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 230 (1991); United States v. Harding, 971 F.2d 410, 412-14 (9th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 1025 (1993); United States v. Simmons, 964 F.2d 763, 767 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 632 (1992); United States v. Lawrence, 951 F.2d 751, 755 (7th Cir. 1991); United States v. Williams, 962 F.2d 1218, 1227-28 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 264 (1992); United States v. Watson, 953 F.2d 895, 898 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 1989 (1992); United States v. Thomas, 900 F.2d 37, 39-40 (4th Cir. 1990); United States v. Frazier, 981 F.2d 92 (3d Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 1661 (1993); United States v. Cyrus, 890 F.2d 1245, 1248 (D.C. Cir. 1989).

Defendants have challenged crack cocaine penalties under the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution. U.S. Const. amend. V. In addition to reformulating the equal protection arguments as due process claims, the crux of the due process challenges has been that because crack cocaine and powder cocaine are chemically the same, Congress and the Commission enacted two different penalties for the same drug. Courts have rejected these challenges, finding that even if crack and powder cocaine are two forms of the same drug, crack cocaine differs from the powder form in method of use, potency, purity, and ease of distribution. See, e.g., United States v. Simmons, 964 F.2d 763, 767 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 632 (1992); United States v. Watson, 953 F.2d 895, 898 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 1989 (1992); Pickett, 941 F.2d 411, 418 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Turner, 928 F.2d 956, 960 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 230

http://www.ussc.gov/crack/APPNDXC.HTM

Who passed the guidelines?
Congress - 1988
House Majority: Democrat
Senate Majority: Democrat
Bill Sponsor: Tom Foley (D)

As I see it, the bill was set up to provide guidelines on a dangerous new form of cocaine that was easily produced and easily distributed and had less purity in its form (read: more dangerous to consume?) than its related counterpart of power cocaine.

I read that because of its ease of production and distribution it was adopted by a demographic that chose to engage in the production and distribution as a means of income rather than functioning within the law. (And if you say thats all whitey's fault I'll really laugh at you)

The crux of the SCOTUS decision was that the sentencing judges SHOULD have leeway to make sentence determinations outside the mandated guidelines. To this I agree and it should be applied across the board for all forms of punishment and all crimes brought before the bench. The Judge is in the best seat to make that determination rather than a mass application guideline/law passed by Congress.

[875000]

It's not?


Institutional racism is distinguished from the bigotry or racial bias of individuals by the existence of systematic policies and practices within the institution, that have the effect of disadvantaging certain racial or ethnic groups

Notice the lack of "intent" and the emphasis on "effect".

You can find the source in the link you provided. Thanks for playing.

Notice the word "institutional" before the word "racism," showing that "institutional racism" is a specific term with a specific meaning.

Please further note that according to Merriam-Webster "effect" can mean "intent" depending on its context.

Which leads me to my final point. Notice the following from the same Wikipedia link , which helps explain the context:


Institutional racism (also known as structural racism, state racism or systemic racism) is racial discrimination by governments, corporations, educational institutions or other large organizations with the power to influence the lives of many individuals. Stokely Carmichael is credited for coining the phrase institutional racism in the late 1960s. He defined the term as "the collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin".

Emphasis on the word "because." In others words "due to" or "on the acount of." The person who coined the phrase even disagrees with your use of the term.

And, although there is no way for me to back it, I very much doubt that you even had heard the term "institutional racism" until you read the article in a panicked attempted to salvage yourself.


My point: Black people are more effected by these laws than white people.

Problem?

Only with the fact that the use of the word "based" in the definition invalidates your assertion of what the word means.

Functionally illiterate it is.

[Daniel]

Notice the word "institutional" before the word "racism," showing that "institutional racism" is a specific term with a specific meaning.

Please further note that according to Merriam-Webster "effect" can mean "intent" depending on its context.

Which leads me to my final point. Notice the following from the same Wikipedia link , which helps explain the context:



Emphasis on the word "because." In others words "due to" or "on the acount of." The person who coined the phrase even disagrees with your use of the term.

And, although there is no way for me to back it, I very much doubt that you even had heard the term "institutional racism" until you read the article in a panicked attempted to salvage yourself.



Only with the fact that the use of the word "based" in the definition invalidates your assertion of what the word means.

Functionally illiterate it is.

Well 87500,

You can feel free to interpret what I said based upon specific and isolated interpretations that run contrary to what I suggest I *was* *saying*.

Or, you can just admit that you mistook what I was trying to say and flew off the handle.

Or, you can look like an idiot. Your choice.

P.s. From the same article on wikipedia as an "example" of institutional racism:

hree examples from U.S. history can help clarify the nature and effects of institutional racism.

1. In 1935, the U.S. Congress passed the Social Security Act, guaranteeing an income for millions of workers after retirement. However, the Act specifically excluded domestic and agricultural workers, many of whom were Mexican-American, African-American, and Asian-American. These workers were therefore not guaranteed an income after retirement, and had less opportunity to save, accumulate, and pass wealth on to future generations.

I'll let you do the parallel between the two.

[Daniel]

As I see it, the bill was set up to provide guidelines on a dangerous new form of cocaine that was easily produced and easily distributed and had less purity in its form (read: more dangerous to consume?) than its related counterpart of power cocaine.

I read that because of its ease of production and distribution it was adopted by a demographic that chose to engage in the production and distribution as a means of income rather than functioning within the law. (And if you say thats all whitey's fault I'll really laugh at you)

The crux of the SCOTUS decision was that the sentencing judges SHOULD have leeway to make sentence determinations outside the mandated guidelines. To this I agree and it should be applied across the board for all forms of punishment and all crimes brought before the bench. The Judge is in the best seat to make that determination rather than a mass application guideline/law passed by Congress.

You are correct. The reason why I consider this a victory is because judges now have the authority to do that. Whereas, before they were limited by the mandates set by congress.

[Gan]

You are correct.

Thats all you had to say.

Thanks for playing.

[Daniel]

I did.

:)

[Parkbandit]

If you recall ( I bet you don't) I first brought this up in response to PB because he claimed that there was nothing that negatively effected the black community in America and that everything was their own fault.


Actually, it was a counter argument that you believe that black people are always the victim and that it's always the white man's fault for all the problems black Americans face.




I've been waiting for PB to provide those for some time. Somehow, he's ignored that the entire time.

Here's that stat you've been waiting for.. I was just compiling the data and rechecking some variables:

9 out of 10 people on this message board think you are an idiot.

[Daniel]

Actually, it was a counter argument that you believe that black people are always the victim and that it's always the white man's fault for all the problems black Americans face.



Except not.




Here's that stat you've been waiting for.. I was just compiling the data and rechecking some variables:

9 out of 10 people on this message board think you are an idiot.

Awwwww....

[Warriorbird]

It's tough, Daniel. Some folks simply don't believe that there's racism directed towards black people today. They usually proclaim this much more loudly on the Internet.

[Gan]

It's tough, Daniel. Some folks simply don't believe that there's racism directed towards black people today. They usually proclaim this much more loudly on the Internet.

D Team to the Rescue!

[Warriorbird]

Given that that's the best you can come up with...

Go find some posts of you and Parkbandit talking about racism against black people that don't involve you two trying to rationalize it away.

Come on...get to it.

[Gan]

Given that that's the best you can come up with...

Go find some posts of you and Parkbandit talking about racism against black people that don't involve you two trying to rationalize it away.

Come on...get to it.

Considering my contribution to this thread blows your shit out of the water, I find this statement utterly laughable.

D TEAM UNITE!!!

RALLY RALLY RALLY, MAN DOWN! MAN DOWN!

[Warriorbird]

So...uhh...citing sources in a tacit defense of racism is a win?

http://www.roomnine.com/123/winnar.jpg

[Gan]

So...uhh...citing sources in a tacit defense of racism is a win?

http://www.roomnine.com/123/winnar.jpg

Citing sources that refute the arguments being presented, and that substantiate the counter arguments usually indicates so.

Wouldnt you say so?

[Warriorbird]

An incomplete examination of sources to attempt to prove a point isn't being a researcher... it is being an attorney.

[Gan]

An incomplete examination of sources to attempt to prove a point isn't being a researcher... it is being an attorney.

Instead of sitting in the cheap seats, you're welcome to jump in and refute whats been presented.

Or, you can just continue to do what you do best.
:rah:

[Warriorbird]

Point out your biases? Certainly.

[Gan]

Point out your biases? Certainly.

Too bad your accuracy is questionable at best, and in this case flat out wrong.

PS. How's the view from back there?

[Warriorbird]

So... you haven't spent most of your time in discussions of racism attempting to deny its existence?

I'd love to see these posts.

[Gan]

So... you haven't spent most of your time in discussions of racism attempting to deny its existence?

I'd love to see these posts.

Here's your chance to shine. Prove it.

Prove that I believe racism doesnt exist. Please back up your theory with evidence.


Yes, I'm calling you to the square on this, meatwad. Come on now, man up. Show everyone that you do have a set of nuts for once.

[Warriorbird]

Right after where you show me where you've discussed it relative to black Americans other than to attempt to prove that it doesn't exist...oh wait, you haven't...

Point illustrated.

Though I suppose you could say that your calling black people racist counted...I'm not considering it as meeting this test.

[Gan]

Right after where you show me where you've discussed it relative to black Americans other than to attempt to prove that it doesn't exist...oh wait, you haven't...

Point illustrated.

ROFL

I thought so. THe nutless wonder strikes again.

Thanks for playing. Its time for you to sit back down now, and STFU.

[Warriorbird]

I'm somehow not noticing you stepping up and denying how you've spent your time.

Wait a few months...you'll insult a few more civil rights leaders...call them racist...

...then something systematic will show up and you'll be all...

"See! My figures prove nothing racist ever happens to black people!"

I doubt you'd claim it to anybody black face to face.

It's pretty funny when taken as a whole.

[Daniel]

Does that justify a lessening of the laws, simply because its perceived to be unfair to one class instead of another because of the propensity for one class to engage in illegal activities than another?



Since you're talking about everything that you have "contributed" to this discussion. I'm still waiting on this source.

[Gan]

I'm somehow not noticing you stepping up and denying how you've spent your time.

Wait a few months...you'll insult a few more civil rights leaders...call them racist...

...then something systematic will show up and you'll be all...

"See! My figures prove nothing racist ever happens to black people!"

I doubt you'd claim it to anybody black face to face.

It's pretty funny when taken as a whole.

LOL
And you make fun of the R team when they say "wait and see" whe it pertains to Bush's policies.

Does the term hypocrite mean anything to you?

[Gan]

Since you're talking about everything that you have "contributed" to this discussion. I'm still waiting on this source.

Thats my opinion, why would it need to be sourced? Oh wait, I see what you're trying to ask now.

I guess you missed this earlier...



As one court explained, "[a]bsent a racially discriminatory purpose, explicit or inferable, on the part of the law maker or law enforcer, the statutory distinction is subject only to rational basis review." United States v. Frazier, 981 F.2d 92, 95 (3d Cir. 1992) (citing Personnel Administrator v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979) and Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976)), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 1661 (1993). Even if the legislature were aware that the statute would have a racially disparate impact, the statute is not invalid if that awareness was not a causal factor in its enactment. Frazier, 981 F.2d at 95; see Feeney, 442 U.S. at 279.

Applying this standard, federal courts generally have upheld the 100-to-1 quantity ratio by holding that Congress and the Commission had a rational basis for the penalty distinction. In so doing, these courts found that the distinction drawn between crack cocaine and powder cocaine for penalty purposes was not motivated by racial animus or discriminatory intent. Rather, it was related to the legitimate congressional objective of protecting the public against a new and highly potent, addictive narcotic that could be distributed easily and sold cheaply. See, e.g., United States v. King, 972 F.2d 1259, 1260 (11th Cir. 1992); United States v. Turner, 928 F.2d 956 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 230 (1991); United States v. Harding, 971 F.2d 410, 412-14 (9th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 1025 (1993); United States v. Simmons, 964 F.2d 763, 767 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 632 (1992); United States v. Lawrence, 951 F.2d 751, 755 (7th Cir. 1991); United States v. Williams, 962 F.2d 1218, 1227-28 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 264 (1992); United States v. Watson, 953 F.2d 895, 898 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 1989 (1992); United States v. Thomas, 900 F.2d 37, 39-40 (4th Cir. 1990); United States v. Frazier, 981 F.2d 92 (3d Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 1661 (1993); United States v. Cyrus, 890 F.2d 1245, 1248 (D.C. Cir. 1989).

Defendants have challenged crack cocaine penalties under the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution. U.S. Const. amend. V. In addition to reformulating the equal protection arguments as due process claims, the crux of the due process challenges has been that because crack cocaine and powder cocaine are chemically the same, Congress and the Commission enacted two different penalties for the same drug. Courts have rejected these challenges, finding that even if crack and powder cocaine are two forms of the same drug, crack cocaine differs from the powder form in method of use, potency, purity, and ease of distribution. See, e.g., United States v. Simmons, 964 F.2d 763, 767 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 632 (1992); United States v. Watson, 953 F.2d 895, 898 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 1989 (1992); Pickett, 941 F.2d 411, 418 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Turner, 928 F.2d 956, 960 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 230

http://www.ussc.gov/crack/APPNDXC.HTM

[Daniel]

Your opinion is that blacks commit more crimes than whites?

Okay.

[Gan]

Your opinion is that blacks commit more crimes than whites?

Okay.

Do they?

Havent we discussed this already in a previous thread?

Now if you asked me if blacks sell more crack cocaine than whites; based on the data presented in this thread, I'd have to agree. ;)

Talk specifics, not generalities. In specifics its harder for you to be duplicitious.

[Parkbandit]

Given that that's the best you can come up with...

Go find some posts of you and Parkbandit talking about racism against black people that don't involve you two trying to rationalize it away.

Come on...get to it.


Show me a single post of mine that said there is no such thing as racism. Hell, show me a post of ANYONE here (except maybe some redneck like Ben) that didn't believe that racism exists today.

There is a huge fucking difference between saying racism exists and using racism as a crutch to excuse off all problems of a race.

[Daniel]

Do they?



Apparently that's your opinion.

[Warriorbird]

I'm not expecting anything from your future, Gan. I'm just pointing to your past. You're attempting to shift attention from it.

:)

What you're citing from is ironically called an opinion, Gan.

Parkbandit... I don't believe you've ever once agreed in the posting record of the PC with ANYTHING that suggested racism had occurred towards someone black. Sure you and Gan can say that you're not racist and I don't think either of you consider yourself such... but what you've posted when looked at as a whole comes across as a rationalization of racism occurring in any incident in the news or what people bring up related to black people.

The government itself has suggested that sentencing related to drug possession has been disproportionate towards black offenders. The effect of tremendous mandatory minimum differences between crack and powder has most certainly effected blacks more than whites. Conservatives writing opinions at the Supreme Court are of course never going to SAY that... but even they can look towards due process issues... a relatively strict constructionist test... and see that punishing people more for crack than for powder is unfair.

[Gan]

Show me a single post of mine that said there is no such thing as racism. Hell, show me a post of ANYONE here (except maybe some redneck like Ben) that didn't believe that racism exists today.

There is a huge fucking difference between saying racism exists and using racism as a crutch to excuse off all problems of a race.

You're wasting your breath PB. He's conveinently overlooked and ignored this concept every time he tries to argue otherwise. It seems that issue is contageous too, because WB now is starting to present the same symptoms.

[Gan]

I'm not expecting anything from your future, Gan. I'm just pointing to your past. You're attempting to shift attention from it.

:)

What you're citing from is ironically called an opinion, Gan.

Ironically enough, my previous posts/threads present the opposite of what you're claiming. Thanks for playing though. Really.

*And I'm willing to put focus on my past posts. Please provide examples where I have acted as you claim. The probem is, you cant. Thats why nobody here takes anything you say with a grain of salt. At best you're simply 'filler' material. Good for a laugh (sometimes unintentional on your part) at times. Thats about it.

[Parkbandit]

You're wasting your breath PB. He's conveinently overlooked and ignored this concept every time he tries to argue otherwise. It seems that issue is contageous too, because WB now is starting to present the same symptoms.


Huh? The only reason I even post here is to make idiots like him look foolish. If it weren't for the extremely stupid liberals here.. I would have stopped posting here years ago.

[Warriorbird]

It's funny how you think you and Parkbandit and CT constitute everybody, Gan.

:)

I've decided for my own amusement to play y'all's game. Go find your posts. I can illustrate using just threads in the past month.

Heck...I can do it from this thread.

"Where I dont think its a victory for you, Daniel, is that the crack sentencing guidelines are racially motivated. Nothing in the summaries on the blog indicate to a racial basis or effect.
-Gan"

[Gan]

It's funny how you think you and Parkbandit and CT constitute everybody, Gan.
Wrong again.



I've decided for my own amusement to play y'all's game. Go find your posts. I can illustrate using just threads in the past month.
Read: RETREAT! Sorry, you made the claim, the burden of proof is on you to substantiate it. Since you're obviously failing again, we'll just recognize your again stellar effort for what it is. Squat.

:clap:

If this is how you debate points in law school, then good luck if and when you graduate. :lol:

[Parkbandit]

It's funny how you think you and Parkbandit and CT constitute everybody, Gan.

:)

I've decided for my own amusement to play y'all's game. Go find your posts. I can illustrate using just threads in the past month.

Heck...I can do it from this thread.

"Where I dont think its a victory for you, Daniel, is that the crack sentencing guidelines are racially motivated. Nothing in the summaries on the blog indicate to a racial basis or effect.
-Gan"

So only me, Gan and CT think you are a flaming idiot? I can guarantee that there are plenty more... so stop kidding yourself.

And your 'quote' doesn't prove your case at all. Keep trying. If you are seriously thinking about becoming a scumbag lawyer.. you'll have to do MUCH better than that.

[Warriorbird]

Gosh...I'm sorry. I forgot you drove your best friend/lover away so you're a little lonely lately. Way to overestimate your influence and my infamy.

Laws on crack cocaine that were tougher than those on powder quite evidently affected more black people than white people. Miraculously...some of the most conservative people in the entire country (folks like Antonin Scalia) didn't include that in something they wrote. Yet they overturned the unfair laws.

Gan steps up to deny that the laws were racist using an opinion written by a conservative as a source.

Hmm...

I didn't have to go too far. Gan's turn.

[Gan]

Gosh...I'm sorry. I forgot you drove your best friend/lover away so you're a little lonely lately. Way to overestimate your influence and my infamy.
Infamy? I wouldnt brag about your being an idiot as a source of fame.



Laws on crack cocaine that were tougher than those on powder quite evidently affected more black people than white people.
The laws were made when crack was in its infancy stage. If you bothered to read the sourced material above, the SCC flat out stated that the laws were not made to be discriminatory, nor were they discriminatory in nature, the fact that black people chose to sell crack over powder because of its ease of manufacture and distribution was ex-post-facto.


Miraculously...some of the most conservative people in the entire country (folks like Antonin Scalia) didn't include that in something they wrote. Yet they overturned the unfair laws.
They overturned the laws, NOT because they were discriminatory in nature, but because they felt that judges should have more freedom to impose sentencing based on direct involvement with each particular case and that a federal guideline should not influence minimums that were above and beyond a judges discretion on what an appropriate sentencing should be.



Gan steps up to deny that the laws were racist using an opinion written by a conservative as a source.
Please point out the conservative source.



Hmm...

I didn't have to go too far. Gan's turn.
God, if thats what you consider legitimate effort, everything you do must be lacking.

[Daniel]

The laws were made when crack was in its infancy stage. If you bothered to read the sourced material above, the SCC flat out stated that the laws were not made to be discriminatory, nor were they discriminatory in nature, the fact that black people chose to sell crack over powder because of its ease of manufacture and distribution was ex-post-facto.


Lol. Not exactly. It says that it is not possible to infer casual intent to create a racist law because there was a rationale to do so. A rationale, that has since been debunked BTW.

So basicaly, someone has to overtly say "Hey, I wanna send more black people to prison" for that statue to apply.

This is as about as sad as you and PB's back and forth on "Nooses not being racist" because you can't just assume that someone hanging a noose in the south had racist intent.

[CrystalTears]

What I do?! I've barely been around lately and I still get raked over the coals. Sheesh.

[Warriorbird]

You're not worth serious effort, Gan. I'm sorry.

You're thinking of the Rockefeller Drug Laws...which put marijuana on the level of second degree murder. They're New York laws and similar laws were in place in Michigan.

They were passed in 1973.

The most relevant federal laws which place different sentencing values on crack vs powder were passed in 1986 and 1988...well into the crack epidemic.

Sure...Courts have stated that the laws weren't racist in intent when created...but once again I'd like to point to the whole notion of Supreme Court opinions...

The court didn't think Plessy vs. Ferguson was racist when it was decided. It didn't strike it down until 1954. Conservatives (mostly Democrats, then) claimed that it wasn't racist for 58 years and protested en mass afterwards.

80% of those effected by these laws were black... and by 1988 lawmakers were certainly aware of the nature of the crack issue.

::

I was merely citing you as an example, CT. You didn't do anything.

[Gan]

Lol. Not exactly. It says that it is not possible to infer casual intent to create a racist law because there was a rationale to do so. A rationale, that has since been debunked BTW.
Actually it has not been debunked by a credible agency or court. You're sadly mistaken.


So basicaly, someone has to overtly say "Hey, I wanna send more black people to prison" for that statue to apply.
This is just too retarded to respond to.


This is as about as sad as you and PB's back and forth on "Nooses not being racist" because you can't just assume that someone hanging a noose in the south had racist intent.
Actually the argument was that its not 'always' considered racist. Even less so in today's time, regardless of what was demonstrated by the black firefighter in NY who hung the noose from his locker in hopes of diverting attention away from his own failures as a person. Nice try though.

[Warriorbird]

Feeling defensive? Time to malign a black person.

[Daniel]

Actually it has not been debunked by a credible agency or court. You're sadly mistaken.



The U.S. Sentencing commission is not credible?

...

okay.



Actually the argument was that its not 'always' considered racist. .


riiiighhhtttt...

[Gan]

You're not worth serious effort, Gan. I'm sorry.
Apology accepted. We understand when you get in over your head and look for an easy way out.



You're thinking of the Rockefeller Drug Laws...which put marijuana on the level of second degree murder. They're New York laws and similar laws were in place in Michigan.

They were passed in 1973.
Not I. I'm talking about the Anti Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (and 86) as mentioned in one of my earlie posts.


The most relevant federal laws which place different sentencing values on crack vs powder were passed in 1986 and 1988...well into the crack epidemic.
No shit? Thanks captain obvious. Thats already been outlined in a previous post. Great effort there though. Go you!


Sure...Courts have stated that the laws weren't racist in intent when created...but once again I'd like to point to the whole notion of Supreme Court opinions...

The court didn't think Plessy vs. Ferguson was racist when it was decided. It didn't strike it down until 1954. Conservatives (mostly Democrats, then) claimed that it wasn't racist for 58 years and protested en mass afterwards.
Actually, the law that Plessy v. Ferguson struck down was made and intended to be racist. How the ruling was worded made no difference in the fact of what the law was to begin with. Which is quite the opposite as this case.


80% of those effected by these laws were black... and by 1988 lawmakers were certainly aware of the nature of the crack issue.
Since crack cocaine was in its infancy stage, I have to disagree with you, as have numerous court cases arguing on the premise of it violating Equal Protection. http://www.ussc.gov/crack/APPNDXC.HTM

[Gan]

The U.S. Sentencing commission is not credible?
The USC debunked its own findings? LOL
Are you smoking crack? (pun intended)





riiiighhhtttt...
The proof is right there in thread, feel free to go back and pull it up.

[Gan]

Feeling defensive? Time to malign an idiot.

Fixed that for you.

[Warriorbird]

Uhm...

:coughs:

(The most relevant federal laws which place different sentencing values on crack vs powder were passed in 1986 and 1988...well into the crack epidemic.
No shit? Thanks captain obvious.)

(Since crack cocaine was in its infancy stage)

Oh my. Let's see if you can pull out the issues with your response.

Or you could attack another black person.

Let me simplify it for you.

1988...well into the crack epidemic.

[Gan]

80% of those effected by these laws were black... and by 1988 lawmakers were certainly aware of the nature of the crack issue.
LOL, oh wait. So the bill sponsor, Tom Foley (D) and the democratically controlled House and Senate knew that the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 was racist when they proposed and ratified it? So in 1988 both the House and the Senate were a bunch of racist fucks who wanted to screw the black man and thus decided to impose harsher penalties on laws they were forcing the black man to break in order to survive.

LMFAO x 100000000000000^99

This is probably the funniest thing said in this thread to date.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Gan]

1988...well into the crack epidemic.

Says you.

Source please.

*Learn to quote please, it gives the appearance that your posts actually have some credibility.

[Warriorbird]

Remember how many times I've said I don't like Congress? Democrats have done a lot of racist stuff.

I'd say this was representative of fear and tremendously ill considered legislation. "White flight." was heavy in this period.


The crack epidemic refers to a six year period between 1984 and 1990 in the United States during which there was a huge surge in the use of crack cocaine in major cities, and crack-houses all over the USA. Fallout from the crack epidemic included a huge surge in addiction, homelessness, murder, theft, robbery, and long-term imprisonment. The first effects of the epidemic started in the early 1980s, but the DEA officially classifies the time of the epidemic starting in 1984 and ending in 1990, in what can be considered to be the height of the epidemic.

1988 = well into the crack epidemic.

[Daniel]

Once again. Intent is irrelevent to effect.

[Parkbandit]

LOL, oh wait. So the bill sponsor, Tom Foley (D) and the democratically controlled House and Senate knew that the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 was racist when they proposed and ratified it? So in 1988 both the House and the Senate were a bunch of racist fucks who wanted to screw the black man and thus decided to impose harsher penalties on laws they were forcing the black man to break in order to survive.

LMFAO x 100000000000000^99

This is probably the funniest thing said in this thread to date.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I don't want to be on WB's side or anything, but there is some truth in what you say...

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/bush-byrd.jpg

[Daniel]

The USC debunked its own findings? LOL
Are you smoking crack? (pun intended)


Um. No.

From their website:

[quote]When Congress established the 100-to-1 quantity ratio, the sentencing guideline system was not yet in place.


Try to keep up.



The data show that the form of cocaine involved in an offense is not as accurate an index of a defendant's dangerousness (e.g., criminal record, weapon possession) as are the guideline enhancements designed explicitly to capture these characteristics. Hence, while more crack offenders have prior records than do other drug offenders, 44 percent have either minor records or none at all. Furthermore, while more crack offenders possess a weapon in connection with their offense than other drug offenders, 72 percent do not. All defendants who receive enhanced sentences for dangerousness under the guidelines actually have more serious prior records or show other evidence of greater risk; this is not the case for defendants punished by the 100-to-1 quantity ratio.



http://www.ussc.gov/crack/CHAP7.HTM

[Gan]

Once again. Intent is irrelevent to effect.

Even if the legislature were aware that the statute would have a racially disparate impact, the statute is not invalid if that awareness was not a causal factor in its enactment. Frazier, 981 F.2d at 95; see Feeney, 442 U.S. at 279.

Applying this standard, federal courts generally have upheld the 100-to-1 quantity ratio by holding that Congress and the Commission had a rational basis for the penalty distinction. In so doing, these courts found that the distinction drawn between crack cocaine and powder cocaine for penalty purposes was not motivated by racial animus or discriminatory intent. Rather, it was related to the legitimate congressional objective of protecting the public against a new and highly potent, addictive narcotic that could be distributed easily and sold cheaply. See, e.g., United States v. King, 972 F.2d 1259, 1260 (11th Cir. 1992); United States v. Turner, 928 F.2d 956 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 230 (1991); United States v. Harding, 971 F.2d 410, 412-14 (9th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 1025 (1993); United States v. Simmons, 964 F.2d 763, 767 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 632 (1992); United States v. Lawrence, 951 F.2d 751, 755 (7th Cir. 1991); United States v. Williams, 962 F.2d 1218, 1227-28 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 264 (1992); United States v. Watson, 953 F.2d 895, 898 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 1989 (1992); United States v. Thomas, 900 F.2d 37, 39-40 (4th Cir. 1990); United States v. Frazier, 981 F.2d 92 (3d Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 1661 (1993); United States v. Cyrus, 890 F.2d 1245, 1248 (D.C. Cir. 1989).

Quite a few court cases disagree with you. As do I.

[Warriorbird]

Heck, Parkbandit...you could just as easily have done it with Robert Byrd. For those of you counting...yes, this is an instance of me disagreeing with something Democrats did.

And Gan...

Court cases = opinions.

And 1988 was well into the crack epidemic.

[Daniel]

Applying this standard, federal courts generally have upheld the 100-to-1 quantity ratio by holding that Congress and the Commission had a rational basis for the penalty distinction.

A rationale which has been debunked. As I said.

[Gan]

Heck, Parkbandit...you could just as easily have done it with Robert Byrd. For those of you counting...yes, this is an instance of me disagreeing with something Democrats did.

And Gan...

Court cases = opinions.

And 1988 was well into the crack epidemic.

Opinions = precedent.

I was alive in 1988 and even a little older than you. I remember the year, and the decade better than you and yet I disagree.

Source please or you're just farting in the wind.

[Warriorbird]

I already posted it. The source is the DEA.

[Gan]

And 1988 was well into the crack epidemic.



The Commission's research shows that the use and marketing of crack cocaine were still in their infancy in the mid-1980s when Congress established the powder/cocaine quantity ratio and enhanced penalties for crack possession.
http://www.ussc.gov/crack/CHAP8.HTM

...

[Warriorbird]

I think the DEA knows better than the sentencing commission...

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/history/1985-1990.html

The issue here is whether the act of 1986 or 1988 is more the issue.

The 1988 Act was much harsher.

The DEA's definition of the period is 1984-1990. Thus 1988 is well into said period.

[Gan]

I already posted it. The source is the DEA.

I guess your definition of 'well into' and my definition are completely different.

God I hope you dont use that term with your girlfriends in bed. That might prove embarrasing for you.

[Gan]

I think the DEA knows better than the sentencing commission...

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/history/1985-1990.html

LOL

Unreal.

Ok, whatever.

[Clove]

Once again. Intent is irrelevent to effect.

Without a doubt, intent is irrelevent to effect, but intent is an important factor in how we should respond to a problem.

I'm going to go on a limb and say this could be why we have crimes for murder and manslaughter, even though the victim is dead in both cases.

Not only might we want to exact extra sanctions to punish deliberate, harmful acts over incidental, or accidental ones; but why people do what they do plays a crucial role in how to best influence them to CHANGE what they do.

I've seen you post this sentiment often, but frankly saying something like "I don't care if it's deliberate, or not it's still damages minorities" ultimately detracts from the solution.

[Parkbandit]

Heck, Parkbandit...you could just as easily have done it with Robert Byrd. For those of you counting...yes, this is an instance of me disagreeing with something Democrats did.


Newsflash: That is Robert Byrd, dumbass. And WOW! You disagree with a Democrat because he was a member of a racial hate group. Way to go out on a limb there, nutless wonder.

[Daniel]

Without a doubt, intent is irrelevent to effect, but intent is an important factor in how we should respond to a problem.

I'm going to go on a limb and say this could be why we have crimes for murder and manslaughter, even though the victim is dead in both cases.

Not only might we want to exact extra sanctions to punish deliberate, harmful acts over incidental, or accidental ones; but why people do what they do plays a crucial role in how to best influence them to CHANGE what they do.

I've seen you post this sentiment often, but frankly saying something like "I don't care if it's deliberate, or not it's still damages minorities" ultimately detracts from the solution.


How so in this case? In this case intent refers to overt racist underpining. I.e. "Let's create a law that fucks over black people"

and effect is a law that does so regardless of the intent or not. I'd say in this circumstance that it's much better to deal with the "EFFECT" then trying to find an intent, which has been said can't be proved.

[Warriorbird]

How, Clove?

These laws stayed on the books a long time.

::

Ah, PB. Here I thought you'd done up Tom Foley. I wouldn't know the difference between the two. I'm not really the biggest fan of old Congressional white dudes...but I understand that it might be more poignant for one of your advanced age. I disagreed with the law Tom Foley proposed and got passed. I think Robert Byrd's mostly redeemed himself by long service to his state despite of course finding his youthful activities deplorable (much like Dubya's youthful cocaine habit...which I don't think should effect our current judgments of him and I felt only relevant to bring up when Republicans talked about Clinton smoking up.)

[Daniel]

Hey WB, you like how Gan just ignored the point where the USSC debunked the rational for the 100 to 1 ratio and then used it as a source?

I thought it was comical myself.

[Warriorbird]

Yeah. Much like not thinking 1988 is over half of the way between 1984 and 1990. This thread should tide me over for a while. I drop by to assure myself that people with views like this actually exist.

[Gan]

Hey WB, you like how Gan just ignored the point where the USSC debunked the rational for the 100 to 1 ratio and then used it as a source?

I thought it was comical myself.

Actually I'm reading up on the summary page. I'll give you the point that the USSC debunked the rational for the 100 to 1 ratio.


Although the guidelines provide punishment for some of the factors that led Congress to establish the 100-to-1 quantity ratio, the guidelines do not address all of the factors that concerned Congress. For example, no provision of the guidelines accounts for the increased addictiveness of crack or its increased attraction as a result of its cheap marketability to a broader and more vulnerable part of the population. Neither do the guidelines address completely all aspects of the relationship between crack and crime associated with crack distribution or other social consequences. Thus, concerns about unnecessarily duplicative punishment between the more finely calibrated sentencing guidelines and the broader brush 100-to-1 quantity ratio explain, but only partially, the Commission's conclusion that the 100-to-1 quantity ratio should be reconsidered.
http://www.ussc.gov/crack/CHAP8.HTM
However, that still does not state that the laws intent was to be racist, as you were earlier postulating.

[Gan]

Yeah. Much like not thinking 1988 is over half of the way between 1984 and 1990. This thread should tide me over for a while. I drop by to assure myself that people with views like this actually exist.

I'm glad you seek the PC for some clarity in your obviously slanted life.

[Gan]

Newsflash: That is Robert Byrd, dumbass. And WOW! You disagree with a Democrat because he was a member of a racial hate group. Way to go out on a limb there, nutless wonder.

ROFL

[Warriorbird]

Like I said... I wouldn't know Robert Byrd from Tom Foley. I think this is a good thing.

Though I could picture some folks watching C-Span I think of it right on the level with watching grass grow.

[Daniel]

Actually I'm reading up on the summary page. I'll give you the point that the USSC debunked the rational for the 100 to 1 ratio.

However, that still does not state that the laws intent was to be racist, as you were earlier postulating.

:wow:

Actually no. I was saying that the rationale for the ratio had been debunked.

Try again.

[Gan]

Like I said... I wouldn't know Robert Byrd from Tom Foley. I think this is a good thing.

Though I could picture some folks watching C-Span I think of it right on the level with watching grass grow.

Dont trip.

[Gan]

:wow:

Actually no. I was saying that the rationale for the ratio had been debunked.

Try again.

You stated that the ratio/guideline/law was racist. I was wrong in my assertion that it had not been debunked, as I owned up to it. You got a point, but you're still behind.

[Warriorbird]

A lot of rap fans tend to put (no homo) after their message board posts due to their extreme fear of homosexuality. Do I need to put a (no Backlash) after any mention of grass?

[Gan]

Trip, the verb. To indicate you're running backwards after your comments on PB's picture.

[Daniel]

You stated that the ratio/guideline/law was racist. I was wrong in my assertion that it had not been debunked, as I owned up to it. You got a point, but you're still behind.

Okay. So let's follow this through. A court decided that it couldn't have been racist because there was a rationale behind it. That rationale has been debunked...now why does it stay on the books?

I believed I asked you this question several pages back.

Also, for clarification I never made any claims as to the *intent* of the law, which is what you are arguing and merely the *effect*.

[Clove]

Clove? 87500? ParkBandit? That other guy who likes to jump into the fracas whose name I can't recall?

Personally I was busy working.


No comments on how black america brings it on itself by committing more crimes?


Triple sentencing could be enacted for any group I belong to and I'd go along my merry way whistling- because I don't commit felonies; but that's just me.

[Gan]

Okay. So let's follow this through. A court decided that it couldn't have been racist because there was a rationale behind it. That rationale has been debunked...now why does it stay on the books?
Lack of a sponsored amendment by a congressman? Lack of congressional support until the matter has been reviewed and ruled upon by the SCOTUS?

Why do you think its remained on the books?

[Clove]

Why do you think its remained on the books?

Because of Dr. Evil?