The New York Times today has an
article on how both sides of the political spectrum are challenging the increasing federalization of criminal law. It's an interesting read. But the bizarre thing about it is that it describes a revolt in legal circles against
federalizing criminal law, traditionally the province of the states; yet the comments picked as Editor's Selections all rail against state drug laws. It makes me wonder if their own editors read the story. And it kind of confirms my increasing lack of respect for the editors of the NYT, given their sympathy for those irrelevantly whining in the comments that it was unfair they went to jail for
state drug charges or California's three strikes
state law (the problem with which -- and there most certainly is one -- is that is inappropriately applied). I mean, if they are going to whine, at least make it relevant to the topic of the article.
The whiny sense of over-entitlement in the comments reminds me of a guy who called my office the other day and said he was going to be all responsible now and clean up a warrant for an old drug charge (we're getting that a lot these days, and what it really means is he can't get a job now because the warrant turned up in a background check). When I told him that was no problem: he just either needed to come back to enter a plea and pay the fine, come back to contest the charge, or get a lawyer to do one of those for him, his response was to scream obscenities at me about how the
state had an obligation to take care of it for him. He wanted me to pay his mileage to drive to court. The fact that I was agreeing not to charge the jerk with criminal failure to appear charges apparently escaped him.
Then there was the guy who drove through the state doing drugs and, when he got picked up, wanted us to transfer his case to an adjoining state, because it "wasn't fair that I have to drive
all this way to come to court." Anyway...
The other somewhat strange thing about the article is its claim that nobody on the "right" has complained about this before now. Yet, I remember clearly in the years before his death, Chief Justice William Rehnquist -- constantly criticized for being too far to the right -- repeatedly warned in speeches that Congress was exceeding its grasp -- because it was criminalizing conduct that had never been illegal; because it was increasing the power of the federal government and usurping the ability of states to prosecute (a favorite topic of mine, as you know); and because it was increasing the complexity and breadth of the federal criminal laws without any concurrent increase in budgets for the federal district courts. As a result, putting aside the philosophical issues, the federal courts are overburdened and simply do not have the resources needed to handle the increase in caseload. And I clearly recall contemptuous dismissals of Rehnquist from the NYT and others when he gave those warnings.