The current SCOTUS sentencing head-count

I noted in my post on the passing of Chief Justice Rehnquist that he was a key fifth vote in Almendarez-Torres and Harris.  But only after completing that post did I reflect upon the current Supreme Court "head-count" on key cases in the Apprendi-Blakely-Booker jurisprudence.  Consider these realities about the votes and views of the current seven Justices:

• There are still 5 supporting Apprendi, Blakely, and the Booker merits majority.
• Only 2 oppose the Apprendi-Blakely rule (Justices Kennedy and Breyer).

• There are 5 opposed to the Almendarez-Torres "prior conviction exception" to the Apprendi-Blakely rule (counting Justice Thomas in this number).
• Only 2 support the Almendarez-Torres exception (Justices Kennedy and Breyer).

• There are 4 opposed to the Harris "mandatory minimum" exception to the Apprendi-Blakely rule (and Justice Breyer never seemed too keen about this exception).
• At most, 3 support the Harris exception (Justices Scalia, Kennedy and Breyer).

• There are 4 opposed to the remedy adopted in Booker.
• Only 3 support the Booker remedy (Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg and Breyer).

• Based on the votes in Schriro, at least 4 may support Apprendi's retroactivity, and only 1 (Justice Kennedy) would seem to be a certain vote against Blakely's retroactivity.

The moral of this story for defense counsel and defendants is preserve, preserve, preserve; the moral for prosecutors might be to seek admissions or jury findings on all consequential facts.  Apprendi and Blakely appear as solid as ever; Almendarez-Torres and Harris look remarkably weak. 

This head-count also adds even more intrigue to my recent musings on which Blakely/Booker case and issue the Supreme Court will and should take up next.  I am inclined to believe that a Court short on members might want to dodge tough Blakely/Booker issues for a while, but the Justices cannot run for too long from all the Blakely/Booker issues that urgently need attention.