U. S. Supreme Court takes up disparities in federal sentencing guidelines. It's about time, too.

The U. S. Supreme Court today heard oral arguments in the case of Kimbrough V. United States. The case concerns the disparate HARSHER treatment given to defendants convicted of "crack" cocaine offenses, as opposed to the LESSER treatment of those who are convicted of powder cocaine offenses.

You have heard this before, that crack is favored by Blacks/African Americans and powder cocaine by Whites, hence the suspicion that racism is built into the sentencing guidelines not supported by penal considerations nor by CREDIBLE scientific evidence.

The Supreme Court is being called upon to examine whether a district judge, in seeking to impose a sentence that is "sufficient but not greater than necessary," within the Federal Sentencing Guidelines" can deviate from those guidelines when there is "the need to avoid unwarranted disparity among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct."

My view? I FAIL to see why the disparate treatment is warranted under the constitution's equal protection and due process clause(s), but I will be willing to hear from anyone who disagrees with me on this issue.