6th Circuit issues crazy ruling...

 ... saying judges can't reject appellate waivers in plea agreements.  

Appellate courts seem to be okay when trial judges reject deals that see to be too lenient (like the Michael Flynn matter).  It should be the other way around, of course.  Court are there to check the government, not to act as another branch of the U.S. Attorney's office.  

Carissa Byrne Hessick agrees that the 6th Circuit opinion is bonkers:

It is clear that the 6th Circuit—which invoked the separation of powers and stated that trial judges must exercise their power to reject plea bargains “with due regard to prosecutorial prerogatives”—wants to give more power to prosecutors. But giving prosecutors the power to unilaterally demand lopsided plea bargaining terms and curtailing the power of judges to reject those bargains doesn’t “separate” powers; it concentrates power in the hands of prosecutors. Limiting the ability of judges to reject plea bargains—especially plea bargains that are unfavorable to defendants—not only weakens judges’ ability to serve as a check on prosecutorial power, but it also infringes on the constitutional power of judges as the officials tasked with entering judgments.

Our system is more and more geared toward convictions and affirmances.  Sad.