What a Muddled Mess We Weave . . .

Slate's Dahlia Lithwick has some thoughts on yesterday's Supreme Court arguments in the Gall and Kimbrough cases that I mentioned earlier in the week. She adequately summarizes the situation:

There used to be a lack of uniformity in sentencing. Congress created sentencing guidelines. The court decided the guidelines were merely advisory [because the mandatory version violated the Sixth Amendment - JDB]. Appeals courts said sometimes advisory guidelines are still mandatory. District courts got confused. And now the high court asks the parties to make immutable rules out of standards, and flexible standards out of rules. Kimbrough and Gall think a good rule is that the guidelines should go away. The Justice Department thinks a good rule is that the judges should go away. And the court? It may finally have to pick a side.

More aptly, she notes that the legal world is divided into Booker people and non-Booker people:

The oddities of the high court's strange bedfellows and the weird twists and turns in its Sixth Amendment jurisprudence are endlessly fascinating to Booker folk precisely because they defy all expectations and easy categorization. The world's non-Booker people evidently include an old college friend, now an attorney, whom I nearly mow down on the Supreme Court's plaza after argument today. 'How do you think it went?' I ask him, eager for some insight. He rolls his eyes. 'Booker,' he sighs.

From my experience, that divide exists in the larger world, too - or at least in mine. I know the girlfriend gets that "oh no, here we go again" look on her face when I start talking Booker and sentencing cases!