The Ninth Circuit Blog points to (D.M.A.) Judge William Young’s opinion in United States v. Kandirakis. Remember, this is the judge that predicted Booker and Blakely. The opinion is so freakin’ interesting, I could scream! It not only lays out the post-Booker landscape, but also includes an...
interesting review of "pious perjury" at common law at pages 68-69: should we be arguing that the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial includes the sentencing function of "pious perjury", with the jury informed of mandatory minimum punishments, allowing a verdict on a lesser included offense to avoid draconian punishment required by the greater offense? Judge Young discusses the Ex Post Facto Clause under the advisory system at page 123-24: the court applies the Doctrine of Constitutional Avoidance to bar application of higher Guidelines promulgated after the offense given the "substantial weight" given to the Guidelines.
I think that Judge Young is one of the smartest people in the federal judiciary. Not necessarily for the results that he reaches, but for the fact that he is willing to put the work in. Does anyone really think that most of the recent crop of nominees could pull off what Young seems to do on a regular basis? Could Harriet Miers have done something like this? Disclaimer: I don’t know the guy. He isn’t related to me.
PS: It quotes a lot of blogs, namely SL&P.