The Supreme Court hadned down a fascinating sentencing decision in Oregon v. Ice, dividing 5-4 on whether judges can impose consecutive sentences (sentences served one after the other if the defendant is convicted of multiple crimes) based on disputed facts not found by the jury. Justice Ginsburg concluded that the answer is "yes," and she was joined by Stevens, Kennedy, Breyer, and Alito. Justice Scalia wrote a dissent arguing "no," joined by the Chief, Justice Souter, and Justice Thomas. For commentary throughout the day, check out Sentencing Law & Policy.