concurred, he had is separate opinion and wrote a previous decision that was similar. the booker decision made the sentencing guidelines advisory. why? why would supreme court joined by some of the most conservative members, why would they do that? they determined that in essence, the booker, that if the guidelines were mandatory that it would violate the right to a jury trial to have jurors decide every aspect of your sentencing. it s sort of the separation of power, sixth amendment. yes. this is really important. yes. and so that gave judges latitude. yes. if you were falling out of the norm and this is where i ve now read conservative looking at this line of attack that s not a negative. again, my colleague himself used
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
supreme court in the sentencing realm has made the guidelines, the sentencing guidelines advisory. they used to be mandatory. judges used to have to calculate the guidelines for sentencing purposes and then essentially apply a sentence within the guideline range. in a case called united states versus booker the supreme court determined that the guidelines are advisory now so they do not have to be applied in every case, that you have to calculate them, but judges have more freedom to give effect to congress the various provisions in the statute related to the sentencing. in booker and in the guinness progeny, the supreme court made it clear that judges
justice stephens, but justice scalia concurred so he had a separate opinion, and he had written a previous decision that was very similar. yes. the booker decision made the guidelines the sentencing guidelines advisory. why? why would the supreme court joined by some of the most conservative members, why would they do that? well, they determined that, in essence, the booker that if the guidelines were mandatory that it would violate the right to a jury trial to have jurors decide every aspect of your sentencing. it s sort of the separation of power, sixth amendment and this is really important. yes. and so that gave judges latitude. yes. if you were falling out of the norm and this is where i ve now read conservative periodicals looking at this line of attack that s not a negative
0 christianity, judaism, islam, embraces traditional definition of marriage, correct? i am aware that 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 of state marriage laws, that it will inevitably sit 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? woman? well, senator, these issues are being litigated, as you know, throughout the courts as people raise issues. i am limited with 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 to, i m just asking isn t it apparent that when the supreme court decides that 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 w