this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2024
543 points (97.5% liked)

politics

19243 readers
3520 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] cultsuperstar@lemmy.world 38 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Weren't a lot of them installed by the GOP leading up to Trump's presidency? I know the GOP was pushing through a lot if confirmations when they had control of the senate.

[–] TommySalami@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That's been the GOP M.O. for a while, but according to the info presented in the article the Dem appointed judges have actually been slightly more lenient (sentenced less than what prosecution sought 92% of cases, against the Trump appointed 90%).

I'm sure there's more nuance to it if you look at it case by case, but it seems like across the board judges are handing out lenient sentences for Jan 6.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It's because the vast majority of offenders are first time offenders, and are unlikely to repeat their actions.

This is a good thing, and should happen a lot. Our criminal justice system is fucked up.

[–] nbafantest@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I'm not so sure about it in this particular case. I could see them all doing this again in 2024

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I could definitely see Trump supporters doing shit like this. I find it unlikely anyone at the Capitol, who has also been prosecuted, and given a light sentence, doing it again.

[–] nbafantest@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

I very much disagree with this statement. I think if Trump wanted them all to do it again in 2024 almost all of them would join again.

[–] Kethal@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

The article points out that there are not large differences in leniency between judges appointed by different presidents, ~~and that, if anything, judges appointed by Republicans are harsher~~.

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

and that, if anything, judges appointed by Republicans are harsher.

? I'm skimming the article but these passages seem to suggest the opposite:

Judges appointed by Trump have issued lesser sentences than prosecutors wanted at only a slightly higher rate than Obama appointees. Out of 173 cases, Trump appointees gave lighter sentences than the government requested in 156. Trump appointees agreed to the sentences recommended by prosecutors in 16 cases, while issuing a harsher sentence in one.

By contrast, judges appointed by President Bill Clinton have meted out the harshest sentences, yet they have still been more lenient than prosecutors recommended slightly more than half the time. George W. Bush appointed judges have issued lesser sentences than prosecutors sought in 50 out of 54 cases, or 92 percent, while judges appointed by Ronald Reagan issued more lenient sentences in 42 out of 68 cases, or 61 percent.

The most lenient individual judge handling January 6 cases was not appointed by Trump or Biden, but by George W. Bush. Judge John Bates, now on “senior” or semi-retired status, issued sentences more lenient than prosecutors sought in all 28 of the January 6 cases he handled, often turning down requests for prison time and letting defendants walk free.

[–] Kethal@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

The last point about GW Bush supports that Republicans were harsher. Regardless, I think I misread something, because I don't see the sentence I thought I read earlier. However, the rates are close, and there's no strong relationship between leniency and party affiliation of the president who appointed the judge. The authors unfortunately don't summarize how much more lenient or compare the rates to similar sorts of cases unrelated to Jan 6.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Curiously enough, the plurality were appointed by Obama.

Not even the first time Obama appointees cut far-right idiots and assholes some slack. Still found it fucking hilarious that Eric Holder couldn't find anyone in the Bush Administration worth prosecuting. Particularly when Bush goons like Ron DeSantis and Chris Christie would move right on over to state government positions in subsequent years.

[–] cultsuperstar@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

If I remember correctly (and I admit I'm probably not lol), is that when Obama would nominate a judge and the GOP would say no until he nominated someone they wanted?

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago

Merrick Garland was Lindsey Graham's stated preference for Obama's SCOTUS pick and Graham still blackballed him when Obama made the nomination.