Wednesday, October 11, 2006

 

When I stood up and yelled "Yes!", the marshals were concerned...


I’m in our nation’s capital, which always gives me a little chill. Literally, of course, given that it is below 80 degrees here and IPLawGuy drives all year with the top down, but figuratively as well as I pass the Lincoln Monument, the Capitol, the White House, and the grand sweep of the Smithsonian.

The reason for my visit was to watch the oral arguments in Cunningham v. California at the United States Supreme Court. Thanks to a complete set of briefing materials prepared by Misty Keene, I was well prepared and ready to go. Through my law school housemate, author and appellate advocacy hero Jon Nuechterlein I was able to get a reserved seat and was close to all the action.

I have already posted my observations of the argument on the Sentencing Law and Policy blog run by America’s legal bloggin’ superstar, Doug Berman, Professor of Law at Ohio State. You can connect to that report here. Doug’s blog is much more popular than mine, much more focused on legal issues, and much more respected in the legal community (though sorely lacking in “Family Circus” remakes—if he comes up with any, he is welcome to post them over here, and then we will be even).

Long story short: The argument revealed that I might have been right about something all along. For the past year I have been posting, briefing and/or arguing (in the 1st, 2d, 3d, 8th, and 9th circuits) on behalf of amici including Doug that federal judges have the ability to sentence outside of the federal sentencing guidelines where they disagree with certain policy viewpoints built into those guidelines. Today, at the Cunningham argument, Justice Scalia seemed to make clear that he understands the law to allow exactly that. Thus, though we have been mostly unsuccessful in the circuit court battles, we may win the war (if Scalia’s view is that of a majority on the Court and they take up our issue).

I’m typing this from the cozy confines of an office at IPLawGuy’s fancy-pants law firm on Pennsylvania Avenue, where apparently I have been provided with complementary little cans of juice, among other amenities.

Life is good.

Comments:
It seems my inability to link has become contagious becasue not a single one of yours is working.

Maybe check those little cans of juice. Those guys in Washington are always up to no good.
 
Hey! That's not "juice!"
 
Good Grief! Those cans are exhibits!

We're using them in the Anthrax trial next month. Put them back right now.
 
Excellent, doesn't it make you want to say: "In your face Circuit Courts" (or the equivalent thereof)
 
Ooooh, which firm?

--had an aunt who worked in D.C.
 
Just don't have as much fun as this guy: http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/11/prosecutor.indecency.ap/index.html
 
Whoops, it didn't all post: http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/11/prosecutor.indecency.ap/index.html
 
Well, regardless, it was a nekkid prosecutor wandering around a courthouse, per the CNN website.
 
I miss DC this time of year. Autumn in the northeast is beautiful. However, when the park police tell you to stay out of the FDR Memorial fountain, they really aren't kidding.
 
http://www.abovethelaw.com/2006/10/law_school_dean_hotties_your_f_1.php
 
abovethelaw.com/2006/10/law_school_dean_hotties_your_f_1.php
 
Stephen-- I'll keep that in mind. But, I'm about to head out, so there probably wouldn't be time for swimming, anyways. I have to critique PC exercises this afternoon-- bwahaha!
 
This is exciting!!!
 
Post a Comment



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

#