US Sentencing Guidelines, an update

From the Supreme Court Case:

"The Guidelines are not only not mandatory on sentencing courts; they are also not to be presumed reasonable. We think it plain from the comments of the sentencing judge that he did apply a presumption of reasonableness to Nelson’s Guidelines range. Under our recent precedents, that constitutes error."

Professor Doug Berman has legal comments here, and links to the full decision, etc.

The question I have is: why do judges complain about long sentences they are 'forced to give out,' and when they have the opportunity to use discretion, they don't? Remember when a lot of legal scholars and advocates worried that Congress would impose a Booker Fix? Or the judicial sky might fall down without a Booker fix! It's been four years and data shows that federal judges stick to the guidelines. Some might quickly say they don't mind giving harsh drug sentences.

Booker didn't even get a sentencing break until the crack cocaine amendments came via the United States Sentencing Commission, and the retroactivity of small sentencing relief. Instead, things have hummed along since my last post four years ago, as if Booker didn't happen. The reason for the Nelson case? Perhaps it's as if the Supreme Court is saying to judges, "Um Humm, we said it isn't a mandatory sentencing grid, it is just a guide and may or may not be reasonable, aka fair. Use your discretion."

More
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/nora-callahan/2009/02/us-sentencing-guidelines-update