Final answer:
Federal judges are expected to follow the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which provide consistent sentencing standards, but their advocacy for them may vary as they also exercise discretion. With lifetime appointments, federal judges are intended to operate independently from political influence, interpreting laws and sentencing based on legal guidelines and the Constitution.
Step-by-step explanation:
When it comes to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, saying that federal judges are strong advocates is not completely accurate. While judges are expected to follow the guidelines, which provide a framework for assigning point values to various offenses and facts in a case, there can be individual variations in the level of support or advocacy shown by federal judges.
These guidelines are meant to ensure consistency and fairness in sentencing, taking into account the severity of the offense and the defendant's criminal history, among other factors. However, judges also have the discretion to depart from these guidelines in certain circumstances, particularly when they believe a sentence should be tailored more specifically to the facts of a particular case.
At the federal level, judges and justices are appointed for life and are expected to follow the Constitution and the law, irrespective of their own policy preferences. This principle of an independent judiciary is crucial in the United States, where judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, but then serve lifetime terms without the influence of political pressures. This system underlines the important role judges play within the U.S. judicial structure, including their responsibility to interpret the Constitution and applicable federal laws when determining appropriate sentences.