Sentences with phrase «policy judgments»

As we reflect on these realities, it is valuable to appreciate that executive branch officials make policy judgments at sentencing all the time.
That uncertainty necessarily adds to the normally substantial degree of uncertainty we face in making monetary policy judgments.
There is no financial judgment that can be made without a corresponding policy judgment.
After Booker, the impact of policy judgments at sentencing is evident in many ways.
«We don't feel that we are able to feed in properly, we don't feel that we have any effect on policy judgments, we don't feel that policy is being made properly and we don't feel that there is any understanding of what we could do.»
Furthermore, it seems that Congress, through the text of 3553 (a), has told federal judges to make individualized policy judgments at sentencing.
According to Alito, the California system allows judges to exceed the maximum based on other criteria besides fact - finding, such as their own policy judgments about whether a higher sentence for particular categories of crimes is needed to serve a valid purpose of punishment (such as deterrence).
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Policy judgments at federal sentencing: aren't they inevitable and mandated by Congress?
They were right about Iraq, the biggest foreign policy judgment call of the past half - century, when Labour and the Tories were both catastrophically and stupidly wrong.
«It is time for the NRC to employ sound science and common - sense policy judgments in its decision - making process.»
All prosecutorial charging and plea bargaining decisions involve, at some level, policy judgments informed by views on just punishment, crime control, procedural fairness, and a range of other express and implicit considerations.
Doesn't this text suggest that Congress wants federal judges, in individual cases, to make policy judgments about how the traditional purposes of punishment ought to be applied to individual defendants?
The slip came moments after he pressed: «The important thing is to be open and honest about the difficult foreign policy judgments which are being made here.»
Some of that is a pure policy judgment — that we need to do this to provide budget relief — and some of this was a procedural point about showing the public that we'll take necessary actions on the spending side of the ledger in order to make compelling arguments on the revenue side.
Thus, in the view of Lord Hughes and Lord Mance, the conclusion in Robinson is best understood as a fresh policy judgment.
A particular policy judgment might entail the acknowledgement that there is not, in fact, absolute consensus as to what «policy as a whole» is, and clarification from the bench as to precisely how the sentence is believed to reflect prior public policy formulations captured in statutory rules and guidelines.
«It has become increasingly clear that whenever it comes to matters of policy judgment, David Cameron gets it wrong.»
We are starting to see newspaper stories that present public law cases as political events — the product of individualized policy judgments and political views authored by judges who are, according to some journalists, expected to voice the views of the politicians who appointed them.
Notably, Alito never explained why the possibility that judges can sentence above the maximum based on their own policy judgments — as opposed to their own fact - findings — makes the system constitutional (and fairer for the defendant).
But beyond this legal realist premise, it dawns on me that all judicial sentencing decisions plainly are, at some level, policy judgments informed by views on just punishment, crime control, procedural fairness, and other express and implicit considerations.
In discussion of post-Booker federal sentencing at the Yale Law School class I recently had the pleasure of attending, I was surprised to often hear the refrain that judges «should not make policy judgments» at sentencing.
Hicks omits criteria for making normative judgments about what levels of inequality are just — normative criteria that Christian ethicists of an earlier generation called «middle axioms» between broad theological and moral principles and policy judgments.
Many of the authors have altered their policy judgments based on such evaluations.
«By placing a substantial number of injuries into categories that presume little to no compensation, the Board has made a policy judgment that exceeds questions of medical improvements and worker healing.»
«It is a policy judgment whether the trade - off is worth the price, but from a fiscal standpoint, it may not be.»
I'm not aware of any other sort of country as a matter of policy that has been able to make that policy judgment.
I argued that by cloaking its value - laden argument in vague concepts of «international justice» and promoting a «just world,» the Daily was attempting to insulate its policy judgment — that the United States should join the International Criminal Court — in an «unassailable moral imperative,» not in logic or reason.
I am saying that it is impossible for judges to make «factual findings» without inserting their own policy judgments, when the factual findings are policy judgments.
Decisions by some district judges to give the guidelines heavy weight obviously reflect a kind of policy judgment, as do decisions to apply a particular burden of proof or to increase a sentence based on acquitted conduct.
I in no way understand the policy judgment being spoken of here as a mandate for the judge to simply implement her personal views of what makes for proper or good public policy.
I don't even understand the claim (basic 1L lesson — at common law and in equity, courts make policy judgments), so I'm curious what motivates it.
I'm no expert in criminal law, or any kind of law for that matter, but from the outside looking in it seems rather transparent that judges routinely make «policy judgments» at sentencing, irrespective of one's thoughts about «legal realism» or «post-modernism.»
I have long thought it was post-modern gospel that all judicial decision are, at some level, policy judgments.
And, interestingly, we never hear complaints or concerns about unelected federal prosecutors making policy judgments at sentencing (even though prosecutorial policy judgments are not made in open court nor subject to any kind of review).
In sum, I questions the assertion that federal judges «should not make policy judgments» at sentencing because: (1) such judgments seem inevitable and are clearly made by prosecutors in every criminal case, and (2) a fair reading of the text of 3553 (a) suggests that Congress has ordered federal judges to make individualized policy judgments in each and every sentencing.
Likewise, decisions by circuit judges to handle Booker plain error in particular (and diverse) ways reflect a policy judgment, as did the Supreme Court's decision not to resolve the circuit split over Booker plain error standards.
-- I understand the phrase «making policy judgments» to refer to the fact that in sentencing determination judges are (or should be) reflexively aware of the fact that they are reflecting or implementing policy choices that originate with others.
I'm curious what others might think are the the reasons (implausible or otherwise) that some would dare to argue that «judges should not make policy judgments,» as this admonition seems otherwise steeped in appalling ignorance or naivete.
The main sources of adjudicative law I describe are underlying legal principles, social practice, and judicial fiat implementing a court's policy judgment.
a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z