Thesaurus of rhetoric

One reason the Acting Solicitor General’s latest filings are so great to read is because of all the different ways the post-Blakely world is discussed. Here’s a taste:

Booker/Fanfan Reply Brief
at p.2: “The fragmentation of the law on the most basic questions in federal sentencing presents a compelling case for guidance from this Court, in order to stem a flood tide of contradictory approaches applied in thousands of sentencings — many of which may have to be redone once this Court settles the applicable law.”

at p.10: “[A]waiting further percolation in the lower courts is not a luxury that the federal criminal justice system can afford. There is a pressing need for this Court immediately to step in and restore uniformity to federal sentencing — and that need mandates that review be undertaken now, not in the fullness of time.”

at p. 14: “The disarray among the lower courts here is also comparable to that in Mistretta, and the disarray is increasing daily.”

at p. 15: “[There is a] glaring need for expedited consideration of the issues now. Awaiting the filing of petitions in other cases … would be to ignore the urgent need for guidance that the lower federal courts have justifiably requested.”

at pp. 20-21: “[T]he federal judicial system is in dire need of this Court’s prompt resolution of the issues presented. The defense bar’s caution aside — a caution that coincides with the reduced sentences that many defendants are receiving in the current reign of confusion over Blakely — there is widespread sentiment in the lower federal judiciary that, absent this Court’s expedited intervention, federal sentencing threatens to descend even further into a balkanized set of regimes in which each circuit, if not each individual district court judge, literally makes up the rules as he or she goes along. This chaotic state of affairs cannot stand. It can only be rectified by expeditious action by this Court.”

Bijou Opp. Cert. at pp. 5-6: “Blakely has profoundly unsettled the federal criminal justice system and … there is an urgent need for this Court’s resolution of questions about whether and how Blakely applies to the Guidelines.”

Reply on Expedite Motion
at p. 6: “The division of the courts on the question whether Blakely applies to the Guidelines (the first question presented by the petitions) pales in comparison to the profound confusion in the lower courts over the implications for sentencing if it does.”

at p. 7: “[D]istrict courts have continued to apply a variety of mutually inconsistent approaches to implementing Blakely“

at p. 8: “In light of the profoundly fractured nature of the lower courts’ holdings, it cannot seriously be maintained that the federal courts have adapted well to Blakely’s teachings.”

and here’s a fitting finale on p. 10: “If respondents and their amici are correct in their assertion that Blakely will result in the invalidation of the Guidelines irrespective of whether a case involved enhancements based on judicially found facts, every single Guidelines sentence is potentially invalid.” (emphasis in original; citation omitted)