Sincere questions about acquitted conduct sentencing

On Friday, the DC Circuit in Dorcely (discussed here) and the 11h Circuit in Faust (discussed here) both approved of district courts relying on acquitted conduct to enhance a sentence.  I understand the legal argument that the Supreme Court's work in the 1949 Williams case and the 1997 Watts case suggests that the Constitution permits judges enhancing sentences based on conduct that the jury rejected as a basis for a conviction.  But I do not fully understand why this issue does not generate more attention and scrutiny.

Significantly, Congress has never made a formal policy decision that federal judges should base sentence increases on acquitted conduct.  Indeed, provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) suggest acquitted conduct should not be considered.  For example, 3553(a)(6), by requiring consideration of "the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct," suggests judges should not consider conduct for which a defendant has been found not guilty.  Also, 3553(a)(2)(A) speaks of a sentence "promot[ing] respect for the law."  Does reliance on acquitted conduct promote respect for the law?

Related, here are some other (non-constitutional) questions that I often think about when acquitted conduct is used in federal sentencing:

1.  When passing the Sentencing Reform Act  in 1984, did members of Congress desire or even expect that acquitted conduct would be used to enhance sentences?

2.  Would Congress today pass a new law expressly calling for acquitted conduct to enhance sentences if the SRA was now to be interpreted not to permit such enhancements?

3.  In light of constitutional history and the role of juries, why should the burden be on defendants to show that acquitted conduct enhancements are improper?  Don't rule of lenity and/or constitutional doubt doctrines suggest that the SRA should now be interpreted to disallow such enhancements?

4. Is anyone really proud of a legal system that relies on acquitted conduct to enhance federal sentences?  Put another way, is anyone endorsing this rule for Iraq's new legal system?

UPDATE:  This recent comment to a prior post captures my feelings on this issue effectively:

Now I understand why parole boards can rely upon unproven allegations when making decisions against the granting of parole.  As a chaplain, I never understood the fairness of this. As a student of this blog, I am amazed that all you lawyers who express justice permit this to happen.