SCOTUS protects the 6th Amendment

The Supreme Court in a 6-3 ruling declared that judges cannot sentence people using information not found and voted on by a jury. Just for kicks, here's the 6th:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

I'm a big fan of the ruling (while admitting that the case that brought this up should merit life in prison). If you go to jail for something, every part of it should be before the jury, no "bonus time" allotments without the right to defend that in front of a jury.

So, which of the anti-constitution fun bunch broke ranks to help the 6th? Ahhhh, it was a trick question. Actually, it was most of the anti-constitution fun bunch along with Ginsberg and Souter who voted to strengthen the 6th. I mean, what the hell? Ginsberg, Souter, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas all broke for the 6th, while Alito, Kennedy, and Breyer went against. Man I hate it when a well crafted stereotype falls apart. It just kills my rants.

I mention this because A, anytime one of the Amendments is upheld and actually strengthened I think it's cause for celebration, and B, most of the hand wringing (and I do a lot of it) that comes with the SCOTUS and the "voting blocks" is overblown. Yes, people of certain dispositions often vote alike, but every year has its share of cases where the blocks break down.

PS: Here's the actual opinion if you're really bored.