The Minneapolis Star Tribune has more on the Feeney Amendment and its restrictive effect on judges' sentencing discretion.

Some Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee are taking a dim view of Feeney's idea. Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., said the law will result in "robot-like conformity" in sentencing, adding that it doesn't recognize that circumstances can vary in individual cases.

ABA Preident Alfred Carlton, who wrote a strong protest letter against the bill before it passed (as a last minute add-on to the Amber child alert bill,) has been in Washington recently to try and gather support for its repeal. Carlton thinks the bill was the result of the strong negative reaction to Congress's subpoena of Minnesota federal Judge James Rosenbaum's sentencing records in drug cases.

"It came out of nowhere," he said. "I think it was a result of the powers-that-be recognizing that the subpoena route wasn't going to be very fruitful. . . . Better to just go ahead and legislate -- and that's what they did."

The law also requires judges to give specific written reasons when they stray from the guidelines. Critics fear that judges will be intimidated and less likely to impose lenient sentences. "Every time you depart from the guidelines, the attorney general will be notified. Talk about a blacklist for judges," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.

For more information on the Feeney Amendment, go here. For why the unprecedented subpoena of Judge Rosenbaum's sentencing records is a bad idea, go here.