is neither necessary nor desirable for the courts of appeals, because differences in opinion have the effect of ventilating important legal questions and creating a background against which the Supreme Court can ultimately resolve an issue for the country as a whole.” Walker v. O’Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 634 (7th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Hanks v. Finfrock, 531 U.S. 1029, 121 S.Ct. 606, 148 L.Ed.2d 518 (2000). Justices O’Connor and Breyer foresaw that the majority’s reasoning in Ap-prendi would render unconstitutional statutes such as § 841. See Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 544, 120 S.Ct. 2348 (O’Connor, J., dissenting) (stating that the consequences of the majority’s rule “in terms of sentencing schemes invalidated by today’s decision will likely be severe”); id. at 550-51, 120 S.Ct. 2348 (<HOLDING>); id. at 565, 120 S.Ct. 2348 (Breyer, J.,
recognizing an appellate court may affirm a trial courts decision that reached the right result regardless of the trial courts reasoning recognizing that the majoritys reasoning strongly suggests that determinatesentencing schemes are unconstitutional holding that two statutes that are part of the general assemblys adam walsh act are unconstitutional and are severed and that after severance they may not be enforced holding that state bans on samesex marriage are unconstitutional holding unconstitutional ordinance enacted in reliance on foreign studies which focused only on efficacy of land use and zoning schemes in reducing crime