53 Pages Posted: 28 Mar 2010 Last revised: 2 Apr 2010
Date Written: March 23, 2010
Imagine a final exam essay answer in constitutional law which sets forth doctrinal principles like the following: Decision-makers should preferably give vague explanations grounded in moral philosophy rather than specific explanations connected to particular findings. Appellate review of trial court decision-making is unconstitutional. Courts are entitled to substitute their own policy preferences for those enacted by the legislature on questions of non-constitutional law; in fact, it is probably unconstitutional to enact legislation expressly compelling courts to follow the legislature’s non-constitutional policy preferences. One might expect such an exam answer to receive an F - but if the exam question involved the United States Supreme Court’s new constitutional law of sentencing, then the student has probably earned an A. Welcome to Apprendi Land - which has now become Bizarro World. This article examines and criticizes these and other surreal doctrines in the Court’s decisions, and argues that the Court must abrogate its expansion of Apprendi doctrine to restore most issues of sentencing policy to non-constitutional status.
Keywords: sentencing, Apprendi, Blakely, Booker, sentencing guidelines
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Priester, Benjamin J., Apprendi Land Becomes Bizarro World: 'Policy Nullification' and Other Surreal Doctrines in the New Constitutional Law of Sentencing (March 23, 2010). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1577243 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1577243