The way I read this opinion is that Scalia(Thomas/Stevens) want a JURY to determine the FACTS (drug amount, culpability as mastermind of conspiracy, etc.) that will blow the defendant away, not JUDGES.
The problem is Ginsberg who switched sides on the remedy, and made the guidelines advisory.
The easy (and constitutional) solution was to place the facts in front of a jury, and keep the guidelines mandatory.
Perhaps we are not as far apart on this as it might seem. I agree juries determine the facts of a case, but once the jury has weighed the evidence, it has traditionally then been the task of the judge to take that verdict and actually impose a specific sentence in light of such mitigating factors as are present. One well known exception is in death penalty cases, where the jury first renders the verdict, then considers separately the issue of yea or nay on the punishment phase of the matter. Judges have great latitude to amend a jury's award in a civil case. Even without the "mandatory minimums", judges are limited to the range of punishment set out in statutory law. Why does a legislative body bother to set into black letter law this range of possible punishment if that body is then going to strip judges of the right to work within the limits set forth by said legislative branch?