Should the Court reconsider its majority opinion in Oregon v. Ice

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Should the Court reconsider its majority opinion in Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160, 167-168, 173-177, 129 S.Ct. 711, 172 L.Ed.2d 517 (2009) (Ice) which permits consecutive sentencing for multiple felony convictions based upon post-verdict judicial fact-finding which relates solely to the commission of the underlying offenses and which apply only a preponderance of evidence standard? (See Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion in /ce, joined in by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas and Souter at pp. 173-178 [concluding that the majority's reasoning had been specifically rejected in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 482483, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 2358-2359, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) (Apprendi); see also Alleyne v. United States 570 U.S. 99, 111-112, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 2160, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013) (Alleyne).) Would overruling /ce undermine principles of stare decisis, or would such a decision only minimally affect governmental reliance on past precedent because “prosecutors are perfectly able to ‘charge facts upon which [consecutive sentencing] is based in the indictment and prove them to a jury.’ Harris [v. United States], 536 U.S. [545] at p. 581, 122 S.Ct. 2406, 153 L.Ed.2d 524 [(2002)] (Thomas, J., dissenting).” (Alleyne, supra, 570 U.S. at pp. 119 (concurring opinion of Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justices Ginsburg and Kagan join)? i