NY Times Has a Glowing Article on Progressive Judge on a Mission to Get Child Porn Collectors Off

U.S. District Court Judge Jack Weinstein doesn't give a damn what the law says, nor does he have an interest in meeting his oath.

So, of course, the New York Times gave the progressive jurist a front-page article:

Judge Weinstein, who sits in the United States District Court in Brooklyn, has twice thrown out convictions that would have ensured that the man spend at least five years behind bars. He has pledged to break protocol and inform the next jury about the mandatory prison sentence that the charges carry. And he recently declared that the man, who is awaiting a new trial, did not need an electronic ankle bracelet because he posed “no risk to society.”

Judge Weinstein has gone to extraordinary lengths to challenge the strict punishments, issuing a series of rulings that directly attack the mandatory five-year prison sentence faced by defendants charged with receiving child pornography.

“I don’t approve of child pornography, obviously,” he said in an interview this week. But, he also said, he does not believe that those who view the images, as opposed to producing or selling them, present a threat to children.

“We’re destroying lives unnecessarily,” he said. “At the most, they should be receiving treatment and supervision.”

That's not his call. Congress and the state legislatures get to decide what sentences are appropriate for crimes and the Supreme Court has upheld mandatory minimums as a proper exercise of that legislative power.

Judges are supposed to be bound by their oaths to faithfully support the Constitution and the laws of the United States. But not "progressive" judges. Judge Weinstein thinks he knows better, so he'll squirm every which way to avoid complying with his sworn duty.

Weinstein has been at this for years. Fortunately, I think he's finally hung himself. As the quote above says, he finally gave an interview in which he expressed his belief that folks who view child porn should get "treatment and supervision" instead of the congressionally-mandated five year minimum. If I were a prosecutor who had one of these cases assigned to Weinstein's court, I'd give serious thought to moving for recusal based on his now-public statements and past history.

If Weinstein wants to end the mandatory minimum law, he should run for Congress. His disregard for his duty to uphold the laws and Constitution is a step beyond the typical liberal judicial philosophy into a truly "progressive" belief that the law is what the judge says it is and legislatures can take a hike.

posted by Gabriel Malor at 01:38 PM

| Access Comments