« A judicial pitch for making crack reductions retroactive | Main | Sentencing reqwests in Qwest sentencing »
July 26, 2007
Off to DC for ACS
I am about to hit the road for Washington DC to participate in the Fifth Annual ACS National Convention. A complete schedule of events is available at this link, and I'll be moderating a great panel of great judges discussing "The Future of Federal Sentencing: The Courts Continue to Sort it Out."
Blogging may be light through the weekend, though I hope to have pockets on time on-line.
July 26, 2007 at 03:34 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e200e3933031088834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Off to DC for ACS:
Comments
The Supreme Court merits brief for Kimbrough, and for the Gall and Kimbrough amici, are being filed today. Gall's brief on the merits was filed early, last week. The New York Council of Lawyers plans to post them on their site soon. There is a lot of excellent work supporting the reasonableness of below-Guidelines sentencing to be found in these briefs.
Posted by: Peter G | Jul 26, 2007 6:35:49 PM
You'd better be careful. Too many trips to the ACS convention and you may be tarred as an extremist, just like the folks at the Federalist Society. You'll be unelectable, unappointable, unquotable, and otherwise generally unreliable. In particular, if you try to become a judge, your ACS membership will be cited as basis to deny your confirmation.
Fair warning.
Mark
P.S. This is -- I wish it were obvious -- a joke. However, I've been shocked by the fact that membership in the Federalist Society, or participation in its events, has been used as a basis for criticism of potential judges. While that criticism should be, in my opinion, laughed at, any similar attacks against ACS members (if anyone ever stoops that low) should be similarly laughed at. Have a great time.
Posted by: Mark | Jul 26, 2007 7:26:26 PM
You're right Mark, people who are in the Federalist Society are completely "unelectable, unappointable, unquotable, and otherwise generally unreliable."
Unless, of course, you want a legal job in or from the current administration. Then a position with the Federalists is a pre-requisite. Just ask Monica Goodling.
Posted by: Anon | Jul 27, 2007 3:06:29 PM
Here, Anon, is a clear example of what Mark was referring to. Schumer is a disgrace. I withheld the proper adjective to keep it family friendly.
Posted by: Ben D | Jul 27, 2007 9:55:20 PM
Schumer is 100% correct. It's about time the Dems stood up for something. There wouldn't be a problem if Bush would stop nominating conservative nutjobs.
Posted by: Anon | Jul 28, 2007 4:09:44 PM
Folks, I don’t think you get it.
Schumer is a Congressman. When he talks, no matter what he says, people listen. They listen not because he is necessarily saying something true or just, but because he is taking a position. In effect, his words are political rhetoric. When speaking to ACS, he knows that his words will be listened to by the administration. (Yes, they do follow ACS.)
So, instead of questioning whether Schumer said something coherent, just ask whether he is capable of putting his money where his mouth is.
In its heyday, FedSoc got a bad rap, I think, because its some of its members started acting like a cabal that they were telling people controlled law firms, politics, etc. etc. etc. I mean, I was once told that you couldn’t get a job in a northeastern city without being active in FedSoc. This struck many as ridiculous. Then, the FedSoc fell out of favor (for reasons I don’t understand) with the “electoral” wing of the GOP. Then, the Democrats came back into power.
This is all very strange to me, as the FedSoc people I know seemed to genuinely want to sponsor rigorous debate.
Whether ACS will make the same mistakes as the FedSoc remains to be seen.
Posted by: S.cotus | Jul 31, 2007 3:58:32 PM
