I UNDERSTAND THAT. I RESPECT THE IMPULSE. I RESPECT THE OVERALL ISSUE. AND I THINK IT IS BETTER FOR ARTICLE THREE JUDGES AND JUSTICES TO ORDERLY NOT WADE INTO THE POLITICAL THICKET. THIS ONE IS DIFFERENT BECAUSE IT CANNOT COME BEFORE YOU, AND NUMBER TWO, IT DOES HAVE AN IMPACT ON WHAT YOU WOULD BE DOING, AND YOU ALSO AS AN ARTICLE THREE JUDGE, SOMEONE WHO SERVED FOR NEARLY NINE YEARS AS A FEDERAL JUDGE, YOU HAVE DEVELOPED EXPERIENCE AND INTUITION AND A THOROUGH UNDERSTANDING OF OUR FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM, AND THAT IS WHY I THINK YOUR PERSPECTIVE ON IT WOULD BE VALUABLE. THE REASON IT CONCERNS ME SO MUCH IS THAT EVEN WHEN COURT PACKING DOES NOT SUCCEED LEGISLATIVELY, IT CAN LEAVE AN IMPACT. THE LAST TIME THIS WAS ATTEMPTED WAS 1937, PRESIDENT FRANKLIN D ROOSEVELT WAS UPSET AT THE SUPREME COURT ON A NUMBER OF CASES. HE DID NOT LIKE THE THEN 32-YEAR-OLD PRECEDENT OF ROCKMAN VERSUS NEW YORK WERE THE FIVE CONSERVATIVES ON THE SUPREME COURT ENGAGED IN JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, READING SOMETHING INTO THE CONSTITUTION THAT WAS NOT REALLY THERE. SOME DISAGREE WITH ME ON THIS, BUT IT WAS NOT THERE, AND THEY OPPOSED THAT. BUT THE REASON WAS HE DID NOT LIKE THE INTERPRETATION OF A CLAUSE, THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, ONE WE DISCUSSED YESTERDAY. PRIOR TO 1937, YOU HAD THE SUPREME COURT AGREEING AS FAR AS THE CHANNELS AND INSTRUMENTALITIES OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND YOU HAD THE COURT MORE OR LESS IN AGREEMENT ON THE IMPACT OF THE COMMERCE LAWS. AS TO THE SUBSTANTIAL EFFECTS, THAT DID NOT EXIST YET. IT REQUIRED SOMETHING MUCH CLOSER TO AN INTERSTATE COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION IN ORDER FOR COMMERCE -- CONGRESS UPON COMMERCE CLAUSE AUTHORITY TO KICK IN. THERE WAS THE SO-CALLED FOUR HORSEMEN OF THE APOCALYPSE -- APOCALYPSE, FDR CALLED THEM, FOUR CONSERVATIVES WHO CONSISTENTLY WENT FOR LIMITS ON CONGRESS' AUTHORITY. BUT THEN HE WOULD HAVE OTHER JUSTICES THAT WOULD SOMETIMES JOIN WITH THEM, USUALLY INCLUDING JUSTICE OWEN ROBERTS, WHO STOOD WITH THEM, MAINTAINING NARROWER AUTHORITY FOR CONGRESS OUT OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. THAT CHANGED TWO WEEKS TO THE DAY WHEN THE CASE ASSOCIATED WITH THE SWITCH IN TIME CHANGE NINE, WEST COAST TOTAL VERSUS PARISH, WHERE THEY UNDID A PRECEDENT. A PORT -- APRIL 12, 1930 SEVEN, THE SUPREME COURT HAD TO CHANGE IT FOREVER CHANGE, MAGNIFY, EXPANDED THE COMMERCE CLAUSE IN WAY THAT HAD BEEN THROUGH A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, IT WOULD BE AMONG THE MOST SIGNIFICANT AND IMPACTFUL EVER ADOPTED, YET IT WAS BARELY DISCUSSED. THIS CASE RESULTED FROM ONE-VOTE , ONE PERSON ON THE SUPREME COURT WHO CHANGED HIS VOTE, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OWEN ROBERTS. IT IS WIDELY BELIEVED, AND I BELIEVE IT BASED ON MY RESEARCH, HE WAS INFLUENCED HEAVILY BY FDR'S COURT PACKING PLAN. HE DID NOT WANT TO BE ON A CORD THAT WAS PACKED. HE CONVINCED HIMSELF THAT HE MADE THAT SWITCH IN ORDER TO SAVE THE COURT AS IT WAS, AND THAT HAS CHANGED EVERYTHING. IT HAS LED TO A MUCH BIGGER, MORE EXPENSIVE, MORE INTRUSIVE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. WE CAN DISAGREE AS TO THE POLICY MERITS OF THAT, BUT IT DID CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION. THAT IS WHY I WORRY ABOUT THAT. I UNDERSTAND YOU DO NOT WANT TO ANSWER. I HOPE THAT BETWEEN NOW AND THE END OF THE DAY, YOU WILL SEE FIT TO TELL US WHAT YOUR OPINION IS. I DO THINK IT IS WORTH DISCUSSING. I HAVE JUST MOMENTS LEFT, I WANT TO GET BACK TO YOUR SENTENCING APPROACH. NOW, WHEN YOU APPROACHED THESE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CASES, WHAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING IN LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES IS AN OVERALL CONCERN THAT YOU HAVE GOT WITH THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES, PARTICULARLY THE PORTION OF THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES THAT DEALS WITH CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CASES. THIS SHOWED UP IN THE TRANSCRIPTS OF SOME OF YOUR SENTENCING HEARINGS, INCLUDING THE TRANSCRIPT OF YOUR SENTENCING HEARING IN THE HAWKINS CASE. I TURN TO PAGE 38, LINE 17 TO 24, THAT TRANSCRIPT, AND HERE'S SOMETHING YOU SAY IN THE HAWKINS CASE. I BELIEVE THIS IS THE 18-YEAR-OLD DEFENDANT YOU SENTENCED TO THREE MONTHS IN PRISON WHEN THE LOWERING OF THE GUIDELINES RANGE WOULD HAVE BEEN 97, I THINK THE HIGHER ONE WOULD BE 120'S. IN YOUR CASE IN PARTICULAR, YOU SPEAKING TO MR. HAWKINS, I DO NOT FEEL IT IS APPROPRIATE NECESSARILY TO INCREASE THE PENALTY ON THE BASIS OF YOUR USE OF A COMPUTER OR THE NUMBER OF IMAGES OR PREPUBESCENT VICTIMS AS THE GUIDELINES REQUIRE BECAUSE THESE CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST IN MANY CASES, IF NOT MOST, AND DO NOT SIGNAL AN ESPECIALLY HEINOUS OR EGREGIOUS CHILD PORNOGRAPHY OFFENSE. A COUPLE QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT. YOU START OFF THAT PARAGRAPH SOUNDING LIKE YOU'RE MAKING A DETERMINATION AS TO HIM, BUT THEN THE OBSERVATIONS YOU MAKE IN THE PARAGRAPHS AND TO APPLY BROADLY. IS THAT RIGHT?