Krauthammer’s response to the Obama/Holder plan regarding drug criminals is spot on. Note the point about instructing prosecutors to essentially falsify indictments to avoid certain prison terms. Quite remarkable. In addition to the myriad of problems here, it is one more example of Obama simply deciding that his administration will stop enforcing laws he doesn’t like. You may even agree those laws should be changed, so let’s change them, then. This is another case, however, of Obama’s regime ignoring the constitutional process and deciding, by fiat, what laws will, or will not, be implemented. For Congress to allow this to continue is outrageous.

Background via CSM:

In a fundamental shift in America’s decades-long war on drugs, Attorney General Eric Holder announced on Monday he has ordered federal prosecutors to stop seeking maximum punishments for certain low-level, nonviolent drug offenders…

Part of the solution is a new emphasis on prosecutorial discretion at the front end of a criminal case. Rather than enforcing every federal drug law, federal prosecutors will be encouraged to allow state or local prosecutors to bring charges against nonviolent drug offenders.

Holder has also ordered prosecutors to use their discretion in how certain drug offenders are charged to avoid triggering harsh mandatory sentencing schemes that have sent a quarter of federal inmates to prison.

Low-level offenders who have no ties to drug gangs, international traffickers, or drug cartels “will no longer be charged with offenses that impose draconian mandatory minimum sentences,” Holder said. “By reserving the most severe penalties for serious, high-level, or violent drug traffickers, we can better promote public safety, deterrence, and rehabilitation.”

Critics attacked Holder’s approach as an attempt to sidestep sentencing policies established after significant debate and enactment in Congress. Some said it would undercut the ability of prosecutors to reach quick plea deals.

Here’s Krauthammer’s take:

This section is for comments from's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Tammy agrees with or endorses any particular comment just because she lets it stand.
8 Comments | Leave a comment
    • 1ntbtn says:

      Amen, Shifra, the writer of Network must have been a prophet. One more thing, I hope all of these criminals that are released early are so grateful, and thankful to Holder that they move right next door to him.

  1. Alain41 says:

    In related news:

    “…”The president may not decline to follow a statutory mandate or prohibition simply because of policy objections,” Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote in a majority opinion…”It is no overstatement to say that our constitutional system of separation of powers would be significantly altered if we were to allow executive and independent agencies to disregard federal law in the manner asserted in this case by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,” Kavanaugh wrote….Reid, a Democrat, called the appeals court decision “fairly meaningless.”…”This isn’t even a bump in the road. This, without being disrespectful to the court, means nothing,” Reid told reporters…”

    • Alain41 says:

      Even more from the sage Harry Reid. Eg, if you don’t say what we want, we’ll destroy you. Is Searchlight a section of Chicago?

      “…He was even less diplomatic when he criticized three judges on the D.C. Circuit as “terrible,” a group that includes one of the judges who ruled against the NRC, Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh.

      “We put on three people — I don’t think they deserve to be on any court, but they — we put them on there, and they have been terrible,” Reid said on Nevada Public Radio, as Roll Call noted. “They’re the ones that said … the president can’t have recess appointments which we’ve had since this country started. They’ve done a lot of bad things, so we’re focusing very intently on the D.C. Circuit.”…”

  2. Maynard says:

    “D”, not as in “Democrat”, but as in “Dictator”.

    The “good” news is that when, say, Ted Cruz is elected president, he can simply suspend Obamacare in its entirety by fiat. With these precedents in place, what basis would Democrats have to object? And if they do object, the new president can declare anyone raising objections lawbreakers by fiat, and jail them.

  3. ConservativeSue says:

    There’s also other individuals to be considered for reduced or erased charges. It’s those who are applying for Pell Grants through FAFSA to get free education. Those with criminal backgrounds don’t qualify. Just imagine…all the gang members, refugees, and amnesty winners who have criminal records will be able to apply for education benefits when criminal background activities get expunged from their records. Holder is opening the door for them. Is there no end in sight?

  4. Kitten says:

    Pray for America. We ARE living in a banana republic. Tammy reminds us constantly that this is not normal. Love the clip from Network, Shifra. It’s the frustration so many Americans are feeling right now. No one in authority is doing anything to stop the madness. When will enough be enough, and Congress finds their ??? to impeach this POS. He craps all over our Constitution while they stand around watching. They don’t want to say it stinks, they don’t want to say Boo to the black guy. RAACCIISSTT! Lord help us, we need You.

  5. TX Soldier254 says:

    Imagine, all this Dictator-ing going on while OUR Republican Congress is in the corner Sucking their Thumbs and counting their Toes!

    I say RECALL ALL R’s, yes Cruz included.
    We need a Bleach & Steel Wool cleaning.
    Purge & Shame McCain, Boehner, and any other Cancer to Conservatism.

    Then We can Move FORWARD!

You must be logged in to post a comment.