9th circuit court of appeals at it again

[Widescreen]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/na/cp_w011633A.xml.html

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A federal appeals court on Tuesday vacated the sentence of "millennium bomber" Ahmed Ressam, who was arrested near the U.S.-Canadian border and convicted of plotting to bomb Los Angeles International Airport at the turn of the millennium.

Ressam was arrested in December 1999 In Port Angeles, Wash., when he drove off a ferry from British Columbia with a trunk full of explosives. Prosecutors said he was intent on bombing the airport on the eve of the millennium.

He was sentenced to 22 years in prison after being convicted of all nine charges. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco reversed his conviction on one of the charges and sent the case back to a lower court judge to issue a new sentence and explain the rationale behind the original 22-year term.

The decision does not necessarily mean the defendant will get a shorter term, as federal prosecutors said the original sentence was too light and judges are given wide latitude to sentence defendants as they see fit.

This could turn out to be yet another overturned ruling from the 9th. They are absolutely nuts.

[Hatfield]

The decision does not necessarily mean the defendant will get a shorter term, as federal prosecutors said the original sentence was too light and judges are given wide latitude to sentence defendants as they see fit.

and you saw where they were only reversing 1 of the 9 charges right?

[Jerk]

I wonder if they would have ruled the same if he tried to bomb their courthouse.

[IronSooner]

The lower court should sentence him to more. That'd be a kicker.

[Widescreen]

and you saw where they were only reversing 1 of the 9 charges right?

You know what's funny? As I was posting that, I thought "If Hatfield or one of the other resident lefties is around, he'll somehow try to make this idiot court look normal." Seriously.

What difference does it make? All that means is that that was the only 1 they had any chance of getting thrown out. The other 8 must've been so rock-solid that even they couldn't weasel this guy out of it.

You also realize that the 9th is the most overturned appeals court in the nation. There is a reason for this and it ain't because they get all the most difficult cases.

[TUSooner]

I'm glad to see all the SO lawyers have taken the time to read the court's decision so they could offer all this insightful commentary.

[Hatfield]

not trying to make them look normal. everyone agrees they are the farthest out there.

just pointing out that you are needlessly freaking out.

[Widescreen]

not trying to make them look normal. everyone agrees they are the farthest out there.

just pointing out that you are needlessly freaking out.

That wasn't freaking out.


THIS IS FREAKING OUT!!!!!!1!1!1!!

[Hatfield]

i stand corrected.

[TUSooner]

Just speculating here because I haven't seen the decision yet (like the rest of y'all, but I admit it ): In these multi-count cases, the Gubment sometimes just sorta "forgets" to prove each and every element of one of a lesser charges. That could be what happened. The 8 remaining convictions will probably add up to the original sentence with ease.

Wait til the 9th actually DOES something stupid before getting all frothy at the mouth.

[yermom]

The decision does not necessarily mean the defendant will get a shorter term, as federal prosecutors said the original sentence was too light and judges are given wide latitude to sentence defendants as they see fit.

you guys not read this part?

[Hatfield]

you guys not read this part?

you not read post #2?

[Frozen Sooner]

Just speculating here because I haven't seen the decision yet (like the rest of y'all, but I admit it ): In these multi-count cases, the Gubment sometimes just sorta "forgets" to prove each and every element of one of a lesser charges. That could be what happened. The 8 remaining convictions will probably add up to the original sentence with ease.

Wait til the 9th actually DOES something stupid before getting all frothy at the mouth.

WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA!?!?!?!!!

EVERYBODY PANIC!!!

[Jerk]

What would be funny is if the lower court re-did the sentencing and made it longer


[nelson]Ha Ha![/nelson]

[Rhino]

I caught a bit of Michael Savage going lunatic-y on this on the way home tonight.

THE SIENTH QUEERKIT OF SCHAMEELS HAS DONE IT AGAIN! THOSE SAN FRANCISCO VALUES - BABY KILLING, HOMOSEXUAL LOVING, PORNOGRAPHY LOOKING HEATHENS! THE TIME FOR TALKING IS OVER AMERICA! LET ME KNOW WHAT YOU THINK! 1-800-449-8255

I chanted "psy-cho, psy-cho" the rest of the way home.

[TUSooner]

What would be funny is if the lower court re-did the sentencing and made it longer


[nelson]Ha Ha![/nelson]

It COULD happen.

[SoonerGirl06]

The 9th Circuit is the most liberal court in America. They're gonna let this guy off easy.

[Okla-homey]

IMHO, Federal Sentencing Guidelines as enacted by Congress represent an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers. But that's just me, the Supremes have ruled otherwise.

Anyhoo, as others have pointed out, this is not a huge deal. Seems to moi the 9CA has not overturned the conviction, they are only asking for enhanced justification for the sentence in order to ascertain whether it is in accordance with those blasted sentencing guidelines.

[TUSooner]

IMHO, Federal Sentencing Guidelines as enacted by Congress represent an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers. But that's just me, the Supremes have ruled otherwise.

Anyhoo, as others have pointed out, this is not a huge deal. Seems to moi the 9CA has not overturned the conviction, they are only asking for enhanced justification for the sentence in order to ascertain whether it is in accordance with those blasted sentencing guidelines.

Actually... the Supremes have said (in Booker) that MANDATORY sentencing guidelines are UNconstitutional. So now the guidelines are "advisory," and the sentence need only be "reasonable." For most district courts it's mostly business as usual. The Supremes are soon to decide whether a sentence in accord with the advisory guidelines is presumed to be reasonable; they may also decide how far from the guidelines you can get until the sentence is unreasonable. I'm gonna see if the Niners' decision is up on WL now.

[jk the sooner fan]

Savage is still on the radio? wow...surprising....his schtick got old faster than gdc's.....i read one of his books and put it down about half way thru....never before have i felt like i was being screamed at by an author