Ah. Wikipedia at least says I’m correct:
The cite on scire facias in Wiki says that the opinion that a federal judge may be removed by scire facias is not widely held.
In addition your cite doesn’t say, or even imply, that the president procedes by scire facias. It could be that the judiciary does so. Furthermore, the entity bringing the action isn’t the one making the final decision. The court to which the writ is brought decides.
A pardon is a certainty. The only question is when.
John Mace:
Those are both the applicable guidelines and what Fitzgerald asked for. The USA Today story doesn’t take into account the mandatory cross-referencing provision.
That’s the short answer. If you want a longer, more detailed answer, let me know and I’ll find some time tomorrow to provide it.
I dunno. Dead Eye Dick hasn’t bothered to talk to Scooter since the conviction was handed down. They may be planning on letting him twist in the wind.
"A White House spokeswoman said President Bush “felt terrible” for Libby, his wife and children. "
Think anyone in the WH press corps will have the balls to ask Bush if he also feels terrible about Valarie Plame having her career destroyed? Maybe Helen Thomas. I doubt anyone else.
I know it’s cliche, but, I smell Presidential Medal of Freedom! :rolleyes:
I was citing that to show that the President CAN’T “fire” a federal judge. Did you misunderstand my point?
let me check … yup, you weren’t confused, I was.
That’s another damned mistake this year.
Slithers offstage.
You’ve reached your quota, and it’s only June. shakes head
Maybe you should ask Qadgop if he’ll let you borrow his hull for a while, till you feel better.
Last time I heard Qadgop describe slithering around on his hull, it sounded far too chilly to be somewhere you’d go voluntarily.
A former Spanish Minister of the Interior and his #2 did it.
For Bill Kristol, Weekly Standard editor and Fox News contributer, this has become the straw that broke the camels back. He is outraged that our President has not yet pardoned this convicted felon.
I’m constantly amazed at what the right finds to be outraged about. The fact that this administration has cocked up everything it has tried to do, has sold out it’s conservative values, raped the constitution, engendered anger at the US from all corners of the globe, stuck a stick in the hornets nest that is the middle east and can’t even help out it’s own citizens in an emergancy. That all gets passes, but W. Doesn’t pardon a man who outed a CIA operative, and THAT’S what gets the dander up?
Seriously? What. The. Fuck.
No need. But I still think this might give Bush the excuse he needs, because every report that I’ve seen that talks about this say something along the lines of the sentence being harsher than the sentencing guidelines, or at least at the harsher end of those guidelines. You would suggest that he got a light sentence.
That, and if he has to go to jail while waiting to appeal. That also is being characterized as being harsher than normal for this type of crime. I think the legal analyst on NPR last night said something like: The trend is to not do this, although it’s completely at the discretion of the judge, so he’s well within his rights to do this.
I would suggest that, if the applicable sentencing guidelines range is 30-37 months (which it is, if the judge applies the cross-reference that he deemed to be mandatory), then the resultant sentence of the 30 months is at the low end of that, yes. 
I also agree that the media—in particular the New York Times, which blatantly misstated things when it said that the judge’s sentence was a few months above the guidelines minimum—has not been incredibly accurate in characterizing either the issues surrounding the sentence or the sentence itself. At bottom, few in the media appear to actually understand the import of the cross-referencing provision, with one writer at the Washington Post going so far as to describe the arguments regarding that provision to be essentially wrangling over legal technicalities before “the main event” commenced yesterday, which really couldn’t be further from the truth.
The applicable statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b)(1), requires that a defendant be held without bond pending appeal unless the defense can show, by clear and convincing evidence, that (among other things) the issues to be appealed raise “substantial questions of law or fact likely to result in reversal [or a new trial].” If the defense can’t show this, the defendant is held pending appeal. (It’s true that many courts appear to allow white-collar, non-violent defendants to be released pending appeal as a matter of course, but without the proper determination, I’m not sure how that isn’t blatant disregard of the statutory requirements.) What’s more, the District of Columbia Circuit has interpreted § 3143(b)(1) such that “a substantial question is 'a close question or one that very well could be decided the other way,” reasoning that “[t]he law has shifted from a presumption of release [pending appeal] to a presumption of valid conviction.” United States v. Perholtz, 835 F.2d 554, 555-56 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (citation and footnote omitted). So it seems like the judge is bound by the statute unless the defense can clearly and convincingly demonstrate that any of the potential appealable issues are close questions that could very well have been decided the other way. Which is a somewhat demanding standard.
Yeah, well now you know how I feel when I read some science story in the news.
How about this fact: If you don’t let him out on bail while he’s appealing his case, Bush is going to pardon him and the verdict and your sentence isn’t going to mean shit, your honor. 
That is an eminently fair point.
Heh. I have no special insight into this case. Being a lawyer in Washington, one can’t help but follow it a little bit.
That suits me fine. Baiting Bush into granting a pardon is a hundred times more valuable as a political cudgel than seeing Libby go to jail. I’d make that trade in a hot New York minute.
I’m sorry but isn’t that exactly what I predicted upthread?
That guy is denied bail, Bush will pardon him within 72 hours. Why? BECAUSE HE DOESN’T CARE.. That’s why.