"Blakely v. Washington threatens to crumble the very foundation of the federal system of sentencing guidelines that Congress established 20 years ago," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., ranking Democrat on the committee.

"Blakely threatens a return to the bad old days of fully indeterminate sentencing when improper factors such as race, geography and the predilections of the sentencing judge could drastically affect the sentence," he said.

Hatch agreed. "I fear that some judges might view Blakely as an opportunity to selfishly garner judicial power in the hopes of restoring unlimited judicial discretion with respect to sentencing," he said.

Hatch said some decisions in the past two weeks show such a trend. For example, he noted that a convicted drug dealer in West Virginia was sentenced to 20 years a few days before the Blakely decision, but had it reduced to a mere 12 months afterward.

Also, a man who tied up the mall in Washington, D.C., for two days with a tractor he said held explosives was sentenced to six years just before the Blakely decision, but then was re-sentenced to 16 months, which was essentially time already served.

Hatch said conservatives and liberals are working on a temporary fix to get around the problem by technically raising the top of all normal sentencing ranges to the maximum allowable by law. It would likely sunset in a year or two and allow exploration of other potential solutions.

Meanwhile, Bush administration representatives testified they believe federal sentencing guidelines are still in effect and will withstand any legal challenges. However, they are encouraging judges also to issue "backup" sentences in case the guidelines are overturned.

---

E-mail: lee@desnews.com