Sentencing

Obama DOJ Also to Back Mandatory Minimum Reform Bill "Similar" to Rand Paul's

Senate Judiciary Chair Patrick Leahy and Republican Rand Paul already introduced a bill to reform mandatory minimum sentencing

|

stand near rand?
Talk Radio New Service/Foter.com

Today's announcement that the Department of Justice will tell prosecutors to omit the quantity of narcotics involved in low-level drug cases in an effort to sidestep mandatory minimum sentencing laws may represent a shift in the administration's drug policies, but not in the tactics it uses to apply laws selectively. Nevertheless, there is a bill in Congress which would implement "safety valves" judges could use to go below the mandatory minimums (which would still be in place). The legislation was introduced by Patrick Leahy and Rand Paul, meaning the issue could help Paul build bipartisan credentials, as the Washington Post reports:

While today's Republican Party primary voters generally don't like their elected officials working with the Obama administration, mandatory minimum drug offenses aren't exactly a partisan issue. That's why Paul — a libertarian — has joined with tea party Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Democratic Sens. Durbin (Ill.) and Leahy (Vt.) on this bill.

The limited polling on the issues suggests many or most of Americans in both parties are open to such changes.

If Paul can work with these senators and the administration to get something done on mandatory minimum sentences, he can credibly claim that he took the lead on a major issue and got something bipartisan done — without the same potential for blowback produced by the effort of Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) to reform immigration laws, for instance.

Notably, the Post reports Holder will be backing a bill "similar" to Paul and Leahy's, not the bill Paul and the Democrats' chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee actually introduced. 

Advertisement

NEXT: Dutch Prince Dies After Year and a Half in Coma Following Skiing Accident

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Translation: “We totally developed this idea independently of teabaggers like Rand Paul, and we intend to claim sole credit if we can get away with it.”

    1. It is like watching little kids try to one up each other with these guys. Obama really is pathetic.

      1. Yes he is. If the economy were doing better and he wasn’t getting killed over the NSA thing, Obama wouldn’t give a flying fuck about this issue. He never gave a shit before now. If these laws are so unjust, why the hell isn’t he looking at existing cases and commuting people’s sentences? Why didn’t he enact this policy in 2009?

        Him and Holder are the most pathetic pieces of shit ever to serve in national office in this country.

        1. Completely fucking agree.

        2. If these laws are so unjust, why the hell isn’t he looking at existing cases and commuting people’s sentences?

          Hahahhaaaa! You’re talking about lowly serfs here. The great Obamatron has no time to worry about the peasants. Well, unless he can make political points off of them, you know, maybe they could have been his son, or something.

    2. Except that our way is better. If we passed a law it would be too hard to single out our politicial enemies for punishment.

      Better to just selectively ignore or enforce the law, whenever we decide to.

      1. If we passed a law it would be too hard to single out our politicial enemies for punishment.

        You win the prize.

        Fear will keep the locals in line; Fear of this government.

  2. Because, you know, repealing laws just isn’t how governments roll.

  3. And they waited five years in to do this why? Obama’s approval ratings being in the tank and then increasingly not having any friends in the world other than the black community and the brain dead left had noting to do with this. It was just a miracle. Holder and Obama found Jesus and decided to set the captives free.

    1. Except that *tiny* part where Obama’s DOJ raids pot dispensaries in states where such is legal.

    2. See also: Gay marriage

      1. But, but… he evolved!

    3. And it had nothing to do with that nut, Rand Paul. It was Obamas idea to start with, and Paul stole it and tried to run with it. Now, Obama is just heading him off at the pass.

      They’ll decide to stop busting up legal medical MJ shops also, as soon as some Thuglican tries to steal Obamas idea about that, because he was always going to do it anyway…

      1. Just like surveillance reforms!

        1. DEATFBIRSECIA| 8.12.13 @ 12:26PM |#
          “Just like surveillance reforms!”

          You bet! They were right on top of that and then Snowden went an put out a spoiler!
          That’s the reason they’ll so pissed at him!

      2. Headline of the year was on Slate the other Friday during Obama’s press conference.

        Obama discusses NSA reform

        It is not a scandal. It is just another area Obama is getting around to reform.

        And they will stop going after medical marijuana shops the day after someone goes state’s evidence on the IRS or Bengazi scandals. They need to hold something back. They can’t give their idiot supporters every make up gift at once.

      3. Just like he was, totally, working on fixing that whole ‘Spying on Every muthafucking American’ when that nasty Snowden stepped on his toes.

        1. Yes, that little punk, Snowden, went and ruined the Kings surprise. It’s disrespectful!

  4. Proof once again that even a broken clock is right twice each day.

  5. Uh oh. Now this is a “bipartisan” thing. I have a bad feeling; those never end well.

    1. People seem to forget that the Sack of Rome was “historic” also.

  6. Out of curiosity, how often do the Feds go after someone for just simple possession? Aren’t those charges usually tacked on after a person is charged with a more serious felony?

    1. Almost never. The occasional dumb bastard caught on a national park with a joint. The reality is all nearly of these cases involve some kind of distribution or the feds wouldn’t be involved. And everyone caught up in such cases is going to have some kind of association with organized crime. They will have either bought their drugs from a gang, sold them to a gang or pay a gang for protection. Remember most “cartel or gang members” are just dealers who pay for protection from being robbed because they can’t go to the cops. All of those people will no doubt be considered “associated with organized crime” for the purpose of this rule.

      All this policy means is that AUSAs will have to put some new boiler plate about violence or organized crime in their charging memos to their bosses. it is a total farce that will affect almost no actual cases. Shame on the state run media for just printing the spin and never asking any real questions.

  7. Oh, BTW guys, this is just a way for both bills to not pass.

    “Well, I voted for Obama’s bill, so I voted against Rand’s.”
    “Well, I voted for Rand’s bill, so I voted against Obama’s.”

    Same shit, different day.

  8. You know when Obama starts coming out with stuff like this, this and the NSA debate, issues he cares as much about as he does the poor 3rd world women and children that he kills with drones, that he is in trouble with the liberals. I never thought I would see that day come. But of course, he’ll never lose his core base, no matter what he does, they are hopeless. The problem is, there aren’t enough of them to keep him popular.

    1. He has to get them to come out and vote in the midterms or the Dems are going to lose the Senate. If the Dems lose the Senate, the truth about the various scandals are likely to come out too. He is fighting for his political life here. Everything he is doing is about getting the base to come out from the midterms and save his sorry ass from actual Congressional oversight.

      1. I think he may be torn between putting all of his focus into keeping the Dems in control of the Senate, and his bid to be King of the U.N., after his 2nd term is up.

        1. Haha. I’m pretty sure there are too many dead children in Pakistan and Yemen and too many effete euros who’ve finally seen through the glamor of the Black Unicorn, for him to get anything more than a cushy academic job after January ’16.

      2. God that would be sweet. I would stream C-SPAN every fucking day if they (Congress) actually did it.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.