Those guidelines have been thrown into doubt by a court ruling made only this June. In Blakely v. Washington, a 5-4 Supreme Court majority struck down Washington state's sentencing guidelines, which allow judges to impose longer prison time if fact-finding after conviction turns up more incriminating evidence. Federal sentencing guidelines give similar discretion to federal judges. Since Blakely, defense attorneys have used that decision to challenge increased sentences by federal judges as violating the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury.

The justices ordinarily would have scheduled this case for a January hearing, but they rightly moved it up. No less than the credibility of federal sentencing is at risk.

The justices need to clear up the uncertainty quickly, or challenges will pile up. It's far better that the court mop up the mess than leave it to Congress. Members of Congress, fearful of appearing soft on crime, could simply legislate tougher mandatory minimums and leave judges with even less sentencing discretion than they have now.

The original intent of the U.S. Sentencing Commission was a good one - to give federal judges enough discretion that defendants in federal courts across the country would receive roughly equal punishment for similar crimes. But opponents of extra punishment argue that evidence dug up by post-conviction fact-finding is not submitted to a jury as intended by the Constitution, and that judges are allowed to apply a less rigorous standard of proof than that required of juries. Judges can decide to boost punishment based on a "preponderance" of the evidence instead of the tougher jury trial standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Bush administration lawyers argue the Blakely decision shouldn't apply to federal guidelines developed by the judicial Sentencing Commission, rather than by a state legislature.

This court also will take up government powers of eminent domain and the constitutionality of imposing the death penalty on juveniles. The court already prohibited capital punishment for defendants under age 16. In Roper v. Simmons, it will reconsider if capital punishment for 16- and 17-year-olds is "cruel and unusual punishment."

In Kelo v. City of New London, Conn., the court will decide if the government can take private property, hand it over to private development and justify it on grounds it will increase the local tax base. Property owners in Norwood and other parts of this region have challenged similar eminent domain takings.

These and other momentous cases this term also should remind voters just how profoundly the next president could impact American life through his power of appointment. He could name two to four justices, including chief justice, to this court.