Comments on: Norton v. the Federal Judiciary http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2007/02/28/norton-v-the-federal-judiciary/ 68.3 Square Miles of D.C. News and Opinion Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:05:00 -0500 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 By: Cherkis http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2007/02/28/norton-v-the-federal-judiciary/comment-page-1/#comment-1810 Cherkis Thu, 01 Mar 2007 04:22:55 +0000 http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/index.php/2007/02/28/norton-v-the-federal-judiciary/#comment-1810 Ugh. Ugh.

]]> By: Jonathan Rees http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2007/02/28/norton-v-the-federal-judiciary/comment-page-1/#comment-1808 Jonathan Rees Thu, 01 Mar 2007 02:39:08 +0000 http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/index.php/2007/02/28/norton-v-the-federal-judiciary/#comment-1808 Like it or not, DC has a death penalty statute as part of the federal laws we are often asked to respect and enforce. The current US Attorney and his division chiefs are all Republicans, brought in from California and other parts of the USA and I think Bush had a reason to appoint non-DC born or raised prosecutors. Like it or not, DC has a death penalty statute as part of the federal laws we are often asked to respect and enforce.

The current US Attorney and his division chiefs are all Republicans, brought in from California and other parts of the USA and I think Bush had a reason to appoint non-DC born or raised prosecutors.

]]> By: Cherkis http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2007/02/28/norton-v-the-federal-judiciary/comment-page-1/#comment-1795 Cherkis Thu, 01 Mar 2007 00:02:22 +0000 http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/index.php/2007/02/28/norton-v-the-federal-judiciary/#comment-1795 The news isn't what Norton said. What she said is by now cliche. The news is what Judge Lamberth had to say about Norton. I guess I buried the lede. The news isn't what Norton said. What she said is by now cliche. The news is what Judge Lamberth had to say about Norton.

I guess I buried the lede.

]]> By: Mike DeBonis http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2007/02/28/norton-v-the-federal-judiciary/comment-page-1/#comment-1794 Mike DeBonis Wed, 28 Feb 2007 23:12:36 +0000 http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/index.php/2007/02/28/norton-v-the-federal-judiciary/#comment-1794 Sorry about the missing file. The link has been fixed. Sorry about the missing file. The link has been fixed.

]]> By: Doug Pennington http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2007/02/28/norton-v-the-federal-judiciary/comment-page-1/#comment-1793 Doug Pennington Wed, 28 Feb 2007 22:33:20 +0000 http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/index.php/2007/02/28/norton-v-the-federal-judiciary/#comment-1793 I guess I don't see the problem here. An elected representative is taking a stand representative of her constituency on a key issue. Shocking. It's true enough that federal and local prosecutors will come to their own conclusions -- except to the degree that local criminal justice is held hostage to the federal system, Norton has a substantial point. (The link to the government's response is dead, so I couldn't read their answer to this argument.) Presumably, an elected DC prosecutor would make different decisions about whether to seek the death penalty. Either way, politicians will continue to say their peace and prosecutors will continue to do their jobs. Yet it's entirely within the purview of an elected official to make clear the position of her constituency on a key issue to an unelected prosecutor who she believes is ignoring that position. Not sure what the news is here. I guess I don't see the problem here. An elected representative is taking a stand representative of her constituency on a key issue. Shocking. It's true enough that federal and local prosecutors will come to their own conclusions -- except to the degree that local criminal justice is held hostage to the federal system, Norton has a substantial point. (The link to the government's response is dead, so I couldn't read their answer to this argument.) Presumably, an elected DC prosecutor would make different decisions about whether to seek the death penalty.

Either way, politicians will continue to say their peace and prosecutors will continue to do their jobs. Yet it's entirely within the purview of an elected official to make clear the position of her constituency on a key issue to an unelected prosecutor who she believes is ignoring that position.

Not sure what the news is here.

]]>