- Dec 30, 2006
- 12,011
- 3,294
Was there an executive order on undermining the First Step Act?
Surely you understand the difference.
***Official Political Discussion Thread***
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by rico x hood,
- Start date
Was there an executive order on undermining the First Step Act?
Surely you understand the difference.
- Dec 30, 2006
- 12,011
- 3,294
- Jul 20, 2009
- 64,967
- 196,190
If Trump cares so much, then why is he letting the DOJ uncut the legislation without saying a peep. Trump criticizes everyone that goes against him, he will got on the Fed for not cutting rates, but on this issue he has not said a peep.
You were championing him for asking the DOJ to investigate George Floyd's killers, why hasn't he done the same in regards to them undermining the First Step Act?
- Jul 18, 2013
- 32,880
- 81,663
Imagine your brother is found hanging from a tree one week and the very next week your other brother is killed by the cops.
That's hard man. I feel for this fam right now.
That's hard man. I feel for this fam right now.
- Dec 30, 2006
- 12,011
- 3,294
I imagine he likely will. If he has not already.
Another difference is the federal judges can act as a safeguard BECAUSE of the law that was signed under this administration.
But let's not pretend that if he does publicly admonish the DOJ for their handling of it, then you will magically turn into some Trump supporter.
- Dec 30, 2006
- 12,011
- 3,294
- Jul 20, 2009
- 64,967
- 196,190
Look at this BS
Trump is a racist, cruel, corrupt piece of ****. I will never support him. I am not as morally bankrupt as you.
- Jan 12, 2013
- 26,838
- 38,458
Barr's instruction is that prosecutors must ignore the quantity of drugs the applicants were convicted of and instead argue their release under the First Step Act should be based on the quantity of drugs that may have been part of crime, which is generally much larger.
Under the Obama administration for example, AG Holder instructed prosecutors to avoid maximum penalties for non-violent drug offenders. That was an instruction that was reversed by Sessions for the record.
I noted this example because it's the clearest I could think of to show cases where the charged quantity is substantially lower than the quantity that was part of the crime.
The First Step Act's intention in this regard is obviously that applicants can apply for release based on their conviction. In order to impede the FSA, Barr is forcing prosecutors to make the argument described above. As mentioned before, a majority of judges have dismissed DOJ's argument and condemned them for making it but that has not been the case for all applicants. Completely against the FSA's intent, applicants have been blocked from a release they're entitled to.
- Dec 15, 2012
- 17,264
- 27,199
If there is one positive thing that this poorly handled outbreak has given us, its that we will likely see an increase in states that legalize marijuana for tax revenue purposes which will lead to a reduction in non-violent drug sentences.
- Dec 30, 2006
- 12,011
- 3,294
And again, the judges are able to do this BECAUSE of the FSA that Trump signed into law.
- Oct 8, 2003
- 17,327
- 9,042
WTF you shaking your head for? This is the kind of behavior you fully support with your voting record.
- Mar 16, 2010
- 147,204
- 179,681
Hopefully gonna be the one coming for turtle Mitch's *** come November
- Dec 15, 2012
- 17,264
- 27,199
Whoa, I thought that McGrath was almost to the point where she was ahead in the polls to McConnell. This is a crazy turn of events
- Jan 12, 2013
- 26,838
- 38,458
And again, that safeguard isn’t working. It’s hardly a real safeguard when some judges do in fact unrightfully deny applicants’ release based on DOJ’s nonsense argument.
DOJ argues that the instruction is the correct interpretation of the FSA.
The only real recourse is reversing the instruction or rewriting the law to explicitly lay out the intended process for determining quantity.
- Dec 30, 2006
- 12,011
- 3,294
I am shaking my head because it is a truly sad situation that I can't even begin to imagine
- Dec 15, 2012
- 17,264
- 27,199
I'm glad that Trump's health care plan is working. It's good that he fully implemented his cost reduction measures and health care is now fixed.
- Dec 30, 2006
- 12,011
- 3,294
Are you under the impression that I agree with the DOJ's interpretation? Because I do not.
They should not be undermining a law that was passed under this administration.
- Dec 15, 2012
- 17,264
- 27,199
Just laws passed under this administration?
- Feb 24, 2016
- 12,114
- 12,759
- Jul 20, 2009
- 64,967
- 196,190
McGarth is kinda trash generally, but she is probably gonna win.
And the demographics of Kentucky unfortunately give Centrist a much better chance than Liberals in general elections.
- Dec 30, 2006
- 12,011
- 3,294
I can only speak to what I care about. Despite the best efforts of many in here to try to claim that I have to adopt every opinion they feel others have.
- Feb 24, 2016
- 12,114
- 12,759
“I only helped Hitler come to power because of his paintings, I do not support the other things”
- Jan 12, 2013
- 26,838
- 38,458
No, what I’m illustrating is that Trump got his political win after passively aiding the GOP to block it for 2 years and then didn’t make a single effort to push back against his own Attorney General sabotaging the implementation of that law.
Trump is generally very outspoken about DOJ’s actions, yet there has been complete silence from Trump on this continuing effort to impede the FSA. Barr generally seems more than happy to be Trump’s lapdog. If Trump would raise the issue, Barr is likely to acquiesce.
Last edited:
- Dec 15, 2012
- 17,264
- 27,199
U.S. Added 273,000 Jobs in February; Unemployment at 3.5%
U.S. Added 273,000 Jobs in February Before Coronavirus Spread Widely (Published 2020)
The monthly employment report left unanswered questions about the potential economic impact of the outbreak.www.google.com
- Dec 30, 2006
- 12,011
- 3,294
You said the vast majority of federal judges do not buy the DOJ's argument. Perhaps, because of that majority, he doesn't feel public admonishment is necessary.
He also is not publicly supporting the DOJs interpretation despite being outspoken generally.
I understand your reluctance to give benefit of the doubt, but if he didn't want the law to work--and supports it being undermined--there was no point in signing it into law.
Similar threads
