Chief Justice Roberts Way With Words

At the beginning of the year the Court issued a ruling (cited: Spears v. U.S. 129 S.Ct. 840, January 21, 2009) on whether the district courts can vary from the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. As many know, the sentencing guidelines (if followed) punish possession of crack cocaine much harsher than powder cocaine. Fortnuately, the Court said if was okay for district courts to vary from the guidelines (although, few judges actually do so).

While I disagree with Chief Justice's dissent, I love his way with words. Here's an expert of his dissent. You have appreciate his articulation.

"This is not the stuff of summary reversal. The majority may well be correct that its holding today follows from Kimbrough, but it is not clear to me that this result was part and parcel of the holding in that case, especially in light of the language quoted above.

At the same time, I do not believe this case meets our normal criteria for plenary consideration. As noted, there is no split in the lower courts on the question whether a district court may replace the crack-powder ratio in the Guidelines with a categorical ratio of the court's own choosing. And, as explained above, I do not think the Court of Appeals has “so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings ... as to call for an exercise of this Court's supervisory power.” S.Ct. Rule 10(a). In other words, this is exactly the sort of issue that could benefit from further attention in the courts of appeals. We should not rush to answer a novel question about the application of a one-year-old decision in the absence of a pronounced conflict among the circuits.

Apprendi, Booker, Rita, Gall, and Kimbrough have given the lower courts a good deal to digest over a relatively short period. We should give them some time to address the nuances of these precedents before adding new ones. As has been said, a plant cannot grow if you constantly yank it out of the ground to see if the roots are healthy."