The Daily Background

The New York Times today reports that when Bush said to the nation that Libby’s sentence was too harsh, he was “opening up a can of worms about federal sentencing”– one that he does not necessarily want to open.

Of course, Libby was sentenced within federal sentencing guidelines for purgery- it wasn’t as if the judge pulled 30 months out of nowhere. There are plenty of examples, some of which the Times cites in the article, of other people getting similar, or even more harsh sentences for perjury and obstruction of justice.

“By saying that the sentence was excessive, I wonder if he understood the ramifications of saying that,” the NYT quotes one law professor as saying.

For instance, the Times notes, Alabama’s former governor was just sentenced to 88 months for perjury and obstruction of justice. Was his sentence too harsh as well? Will Bush be commuting the fifth commutation of his term in office to the Democratic ex-governor?

Given the administration’s tough stand on sentencing, the president’s arguments left experts in sentencing law scratching their heads.
[…]
What you’re going to see is people like me quoting President Bush in every pleading that comes across every federal judge’s desk.”

Indeed, Mr. Bush’s decision may have given birth to a new sort of legal document.

“I anticipate that we’re going to get a new motion called ‘the Libby motion,’ ” Professor Podgor said. “It will basically say, ‘My client should have got what Libby got, and here’s why.’ ”

Another law professor that the Times cites on Bush’s Libby decision says “On what legal basis could he have reached that result?… There is no legal basis.” For more problems with Bush’s highly unusual commutation of Libby’s sentence, see here.

Filed under: Z-TDB Blog