Have these dopes even read the constitution? Everyone has the right to a trial and sentencing by jury, everyone. I would have expected this ruling to have been exactly the opposite with the left leaning judges wanting to have the bench with all the power. Bizzaro world is upon us. The question before the justices: Can a judge, rather than a jury, decide what facts merit a new sentence? Four conservative justices said yes. In their dissent, Justice Samuel Alito accused the decision by Gorsuch and his liberal allies of "laying the groundwork for later decisions of much broader scope" and "revolutionary implications." https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-rules-sex-offender-140851131.html
Ive previously stated Gorsach or Kavanaugh or both might be huge disappointments to republicans.Roberts type disappointment or even worse like the bush appointee that went full lib.They often vote opposite each other and with libs.
Conservatives want SCOTUS to uphold the constitution not interpret it. Fwiw, I always understood the defendant could give up their right to a jury trial, but never without consent. As for punishment relating to offenses after trial connected to the original sentence, and actual sentencing, thought that fell to “Da Judge”.
I think, don't know for sure, but the interpretation is can a judge decide what circumstances merit a new sentence. That would require a new trial to decide what those circumstances were, what if any violation occurred, and a new sentencing recommendation from a jury assuming a new guilty verdict was in place. There is certainly plenty of legal hair splitting to be had as a result of this ruling, but I would still rather err on the side of caution and not have just one person to decide whether or not a new sentence should be imposed.
This is a somewhat confusing case, and it is not made any easier by Gorsuch's tortured writing style. Apparently it turned on this: "Finally, the government contends that §3583(k)’s supervised release revocation procedures are practically identical to historic parole and probation revocation procedures, which have usually been understood to comport with the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. That argument overlooks a critical difference between §3583(k) and traditional parole and probation practices. Where parole and probation violations traditionally exposed a defendant only to the remaining prison term authorized for his crime of conviction, §3583(k) exposes a defendant to an additional mandatory minimum prison term beyond that authorized by the jury’s verdict—all based on facts found by a judge by a mere preponderance of the evidence. Pp. 11–18." https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/17-1672 What happened here was this guy was convicted and given a sentence with part of it reduced to parole. He was charged with violating the terms of the parole. No one argues that the judge could not have revoked the parole and sent him back to prison, if this had been a run of the mill crime. But 3583(k) adds a specific requirement if child porn is involved, that the judge must send him back for a minimum term of five years, ie more time than he would have had to serve under the original sentence. So in effect, he had a new sentence imposed based only on a judge's factual determination under a preponderance standard.