Changes

:To be sure, this case concerns the work of a state legislature, and not of Congress. If anything, however, this distinction counsels even greater judicial caution. Unlike Mistretta, the case here implicates not just the collective wisdom of legislators on the other side of the continuing dialogue over fair sentencing, but also the interest of the States to serve as laboratories for innovation and experiment. See New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262, 311, 76 L. Ed. 747, 52 S. Ct. 371 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). With no apparent sense of irony that the effect of today's decision is the destruction of a sentencing scheme devised by democratically elected legislators, the majority shuts down alternative, nonjudicial, sources of ideas and experience. It does so under a faintly disguised distrust of judges and their purported usurpation of the jury's function in criminal trials. It tells not only trial judges who have spent years studying the problem but also legislators who have devoted valuable time and resources "calling upon the accumulated wisdom and experience of the Judicial Branch . . . on a matter uniquely within the ken of judges," Mistretta, supra, at 412, 102 L. Ed. 2d 714, 109 S. Ct. 647, that their efforts and judgments were all for naught. Numerous States that have enacted sentencing guidelines similar to the one in Washington State are now commanded to scrap everything and start over.

:To be sure, this case concerns the work of a state legislature, and not of Congress. If anything, however, this distinction counsels even greater judicial caution. Unlike Mistretta, the case here implicates not just the collective wisdom of legislators on the other side of the continuing dialogue over fair sentencing, but also the interest of the States to serve as laboratories for innovation and experiment. See New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262, 311, 76 L. Ed. 747, 52 S. Ct. 371 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). With no apparent sense of irony that the effect of today's decision is the destruction of a sentencing scheme devised by democratically elected legislators, the majority shuts down alternative, nonjudicial, sources of ideas and experience. It does so under a faintly disguised distrust of judges and their purported usurpation of the jury's function in criminal trials. It tells not only trial judges who have spent years studying the problem but also legislators who have devoted valuable time and resources "calling upon the accumulated wisdom and experience of the Judicial Branch . . . on a matter uniquely within the ken of judges," Mistretta, supra, at 412, 102 L. Ed. 2d 714, 109 S. Ct. 647, that their efforts and judgments were all for naught. Numerous States that have enacted sentencing guidelines similar to the one in Washington State are now commanded to scrap everything and start over.

==Personal Life==

==Personal life==

Anthony McLeod Kennedy was born on July 22, 1936 in Sacramento California. The second of  three children, Kennedy grew up in the quiet Sacramento community that reflected the rural Central California region.

Anthony McLeod Kennedy was born on July 22, 1936 in Sacramento California. The second of  three children, Kennedy grew up in the quiet Sacramento community that reflected the rural Central California region.

{{Supreme Court|rehnquist=y|roberts=y}}

{{Supreme Court|rehnquist=y|roberts=y}}

{{DEFAULTSORT: Kennedy, Anthony}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Kennedy, Anthony}}

[[category:United States Supreme Court Justices]]

[[Category:United States Supreme Court Justices]]

[[Category:Judicial activism]]

[[Category:Judicial activism]]

[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]

[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]