You do realize that mandatory sentencing laws still need to be changed?

[Skidmore]

Holder's speech was an important step forward to address the manner in which drug laws are enforced. However, the laws still stand and enforcement policy can be changed in the future. Congress is important, and people need to start focusing on the 2014 elections and putting together a congress that is responsive. Cannot be said enough. The legislative branch needs to be a working institution.

[tsnew]

1. True!

I agree, I actually saw that Rand Paul is pushing a bill about this with Durbin and Leahy.

So maybe there's a small hope of some bipartisan action getting going.

[Ohio Joe]

3. Fuck paul and whatever teabagger bullshit he wants to do

That racist POS will want to put in some type of teabagger stupidity... Fuck him.

[Skidmore]

4. I hear you.

Any repeal of mandatory minimum sentencing must be done in a straight forward manner.

[mucifer]

2. There is some teabagger support for this because of tax reasons. From the LA Times:

Conservative groups with leaders including former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, anti-tax activist Grover Norquist and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush have called for changing U.S. crime and prison policies, Justice Department officials note. Support from conservatives has come in part because of the enormous bite that prison costs take out of state budgets.

In his speech, Holder plans to cite proposals by Sens. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), two of the Senate's leading liberals, and Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.), two tea party favorites, that would give judges more leeway in sentencing drug offenders.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-holder-crime-20130812,0,464603.story


Of course if the judges are mostly racist lots of people will still be screwed. But, the enforcement won't be mandatory.

I'm curious about what Rachel Maddow is going to say about this tonight on her show. She has a history of being a prisoner's rights activist.

[kelliekat44]

5. A brief history of mandatory minimum/maximum sentencing.

http://www.famm.org/Repository/Files/Updated%20short%20HISTORY.pd

[Skidmore]

6. You may want to correct your link by adding an "f" to the end of it.

Otherwise, you get an error page.

[1-Old-Man]

7. The only reason this is being done by administrative fiat is that Congress won't pass jack shit.

If the Administration could have got Congress to change the law Holder would never have had to make that speech yesterday.

[Skidmore]

8. There are many things that Congress won't do,

including passing the jobs act, repeal or amend the Patriot Act and the FISA provisions, fulfill its oversight responsibilities, pass a budget, reclaim its war powers...and so on. Congress has been given a pass for way too long. Everytime I see someone post that the President needs to do this or that or its all the President's fault completely, I immediately discount that person's comments because quite often they ignore the responsibilities of Congress and SCOTUS in our system. Demanding executive orders to accomplish goals does not change present laws nor does it craft good laws. We screamed when Bush literally rubber stamped every executive order Cheney and Rove could dream up and we should not rely on their use now.

[BumRushDaShow]

9. Many of us have said this over and over

and it's like talking to a brick wall on DU. I.e., a President can "not" (in a round-about way) "enforce" a law by having agencies "prioritize" other work, but the law still stands until Congress repeals it or at least amends it. That next President can and often does reverse a predecessor's decision and starts enforcing. And you're back to square one.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

[Skidmore]

10. I have come to the assume that thse on DU who

cosistently insist on governance by fiat are either ignorant of the constitutionally assigned tasks of the branches of government or have other agendas they are trying to fulfill, including undermining the left.