Supreme Cout In validates Mandatory Minnimum Sentencing

[Master Blaster]

SO will this be an indicator of how the justices will rule on any 2nd Amendment case??????? Could they be willing to loosen up and let the old political stricures go, will they rule on a 2nd Amendment case now??????
Will it be in the favor of the individual right interrpretation???

Top Court Invalidates Part of Sentencing Rules

4 minutes ago Top Stories - Reuters



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) on Wednesday invalidated part of the 18-year-old federal sentencing system used for 64,000 criminal defendants each year and ruled that the guidelines cannot be mandatory.



The high court ruled that its decision in June, which struck down a similar sentencing system used in Washington state for violating a defendant's constitutional rights, also applied to the federal guidelines.

 

[Henry Bowman]

Was the Washington state system to which they refer the "three strikes law"?

Will it be in the favor of the individual right interrpretation???

I'm not so worried about this part. "the right of the people" is really not so hard to understand as some courts have strained to make it. But even the 5th Circuit in Emerson could not understand "shall not be infringed." This is wher the Supremes will screw us. They could say the Miller did not address this question because it was not necessary to determine whether Congress could ban, tax, or register certain firearms since the Miller's SBS had not been determined to be suitable for militia use.

In other words, you get your individual right -- but it's an empty bag.

 

[CAS700850]

First, thanks for pointing out that these decisions had come out. I've been dying to see whath they were going to do with the Blakely decision out of Washington.

Second, the decisions all involve factual findings made by a judge, not a jury, in determining sentences for all criminal cases. The Blakely case out of Washington involved a judge who handed down the maximum sentence, then found that the defendant acted with deliberate cruelty, and added time beyond the maximum for the offense. Prosecutors were worried about the decision, because in Blakely, the SC seemed to be saying that any factual decisions made affecting sentencing must be made by a jury. As most states have sentencing decisions made by a judge, there was great concern as to what exactly this meant. The new cases seem to say that if a judge retains discretion in determining what sentence to impose, then the factual determinations made by teh judge are acceptible. However, if the judge's factual findings mandate a prison sentence above the maximum that would be avilable without those findings, then there's a Constitutional problem.

Don't think this in any way forshadows a decision on 2nd Amendment issues, as this issue has been addressed, more or less, in cases for over five years. And, so it is clear, the decision doesn't strike down mandatory minimum sentences, it only requires that the juries make all fo the factual determinations necessary for the imposition of the sentence. And, yes, I have read all of the cases.