realm, has made the guidelines, sentencing guidelines advisory. they used to be mandatory. jurjs used to have to calculate the guidelines for are sentencing purposes and then essentially apply a sentence within the guideline range. in a case called united states verses booker, the supreme court determined that the guidelines were are advisory now. so, they don t have to be applied in every case. you is to calculate them but judges have more freedom to give effect to congress s the various provisions in the statute related to sentencing. in booker, and in the its projany, the supreme court made clear that judges at sentencing i only have a limited amount of time. so, let me just close on one
0 of marriage, correct? i am aware there are various religious faiths that define marriage in a traditional way. do you see that when the supreme court makes a dramatic pronouncement about the invalidity about state marriage laws, it will inevitably set in conflict between those who ascribe to the supreme court s edict and those who have a firmly held religious belief that marriage is between a man and a woman? well, senator, these issues are being litigated, as you know, throughout the courts i as people raise issues and so, i m limited in what i can say about them. i m aware there are cases i m not asking you to decide a case or predict how you would decide in the future. i m asking isn t it apparent that when the supreme court decided something that is not even in the constitution is a fundamental right and no state can pass any law that conflicts with the supreme court s edict, particularly in an area where people have sincerely held religious believes, doesn t that effec