tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post5334501945508724073..comments2023-08-24T10:39:23.460-04:00Comments on CAAFlog: Interesting ACCA opinonDwight Sullivanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11657981110237418710noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-62711641929747500902007-03-22T14:00:00.000-04:002007-03-22T14:00:00.000-04:00Is this pick on J.O. day? That's three of you now...Is this pick on J.O. day? That's three of you now.John O'Connorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08014476389355562158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-15777247820747402692007-03-21T13:33:00.000-04:002007-03-21T13:33:00.000-04:00I can't say no to anything in this post, so I will...I can't say no to anything in this post, so I will depart from my naysayer role and agree with CAAFlog on just how interesting and irrelevant this case may be. Taking ACCA's logic and running with it, I would assume they found that ACCA was not required to do a Sales analysis after the CA set aside the finding because the CCAs can only act on approved findings. I am sure CAAFlog sees the potential for mischief that this creates. If the decision to set aside a finding and approval of the same sentence are essentially unreviewable, what incentive does a CA have NOT to set aside questionable findings in close cases? By setting aside close findings the CA would essentially blunt the power of the CCAs in reviewing cases for legal and factual error. So long as the case is over charged, as discussed on CAAFlog something that occurs all too frequently in the MilJus system, the CA can rid the case of any questionable findings and still get the same pound of flesh-without the hassle of actually having the findings be found legal and correct on appellate review. Isn't there a legislative purpose argument in here somewhere that this case is contrary to congressional design of the system that gives CCAs factual and legal review powers? I am guessing my colleague J.O. would say no and give me a stern talk about executive discretion and CA prerogative--he'd be correct, but I'd still argue this just ain't right!Mike "No Man" Navarrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11434921480452541955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-88947292736373943202007-03-21T09:10:00.000-04:002007-03-21T09:10:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com