Wednesday, January 13, 2016

Brooks Borks Cruz - WSJ

This columnist does not have a firm opinion as to whether three-strikes laws are prudent or just (a policy question), much less on the legal question whether the actual innocence exception applies to noncapital sentencing procedures involving career offenders and habitual felony offenders. (A layman’s simplification of the court’s answer to the latter question: Maybe, but not in this case.)

Cruz’s successful appeal in Haley tells us nothing about him except that he was a competent solicitor general. His job was to make legal arguments, not moral judgments about crime and punishment or personal ones about particular criminal defendants. If Brooks thinks Haley’s punishment was unjust—and there is nothing to suggest he has an informed view of the matter at all—he can fault the legislators who passed the three-strikes law, the prosecutors who applied (and misapplied) it, and the trial judge who imposed the sentence.

via www.wsj.com

Miss Brooks should feel very embarrassed by the revelation that he has no idea what he is talking about. Shame on you, Miss Brooks.

https://rightcoast.typepad.com/rightcoast/2016/01/brooks-borks-cruz-wsj.html

| Permalink

Comments