My guess is that it wasn't that good.

The brief revolves around two legal concepts - judicial estoppel and equal justice to all.  A short note on what these mean.

"Judicial estoppel" is a recently (i.e., in the last 20 years or so) highlighted, though by no means new, development in the field of law.  The sum and substance of the doctrine is that an estoppel arises (a fancy lawyer way of saying "a prohibitive bar is raised") against a party arguing "Not A" now, when it has argued "A" previously.  Many cases describe judicial estoppel as arising when "a party seeks to have his cake and eat it, too".  Many more are quite clear in stating that the doctrine's central purpose is "to prevent parties from playing fast and loose with the legal system".  Those quotes come from the cases - judges get seriously p'd when a situation calling for applying judicial estoppel arises - because one litigant's been a jerk.

Now, as to those thinking about why Booker is implicated, let's go back a year or two to when Booker was decided.  You'll remember there were two parts to the Booker opinion, the "merits" or "constitutional violation" portion, and the "remedial" portion.  These attracted different 5-4 majorities.  Courtesy the Federal Public Defenders in Wisconsin by way of Sentencing Law and Policy, here's an excerpt the PDs wrote from a booklet (pages 3-4):

What did the Supreme Court say in Booker/Fanfan?

The Court said two things. First, the Supreme Court said that the Apprendi/Blakely rule does apply to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. This means that facts that increase sentences such as drug amount, loss amount, role, obstruction, or upward departures must be either admitted by the defendant or proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. This is so because of the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial.  This part of the Booker opinion is referred to as the "merits" portion or the "constitutional violation" portion.  Justice Stevens wrote that portion for a five- member majority.

Second, the Supreme Court said that the Guidelines are now advisory. This means that a judge has to consult but is not bound by the Guidelines in arriving at a reasonable sentence. This part of the opinion is referred to as the "remedy" portion of the opinion.  Justice Breyer wrote that portion for a different five-member majority.  Only one member of the Court, Justice Ginsburg, joined both the Stevens and the Breyer opinion.

In some ways, federal sentencing will look very much like sentencing before Booker/Fanfan. There will still be Guidelines calculations and pre-sentence reports. Clients and lawyers will still need to calculate exposure under the Guidelines. But, a sentencing judge will also have to look at other factors in sentencing.  Those factors are listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

FWIW, Breyer would have upheld as constitutional the mandatory guidelines which applied prior to Booker, and then wrote the remedial opinion - how to apply them constitutionally.  Arguably, he got his seat on the S.Ct. because he headed the Sentencing Commission and helped create the Guidelines.  So, it is not unreasonable to think he'd vote against Rita, here.  The Guidelines are his baby, after all, and he's already kept them alive against the Sixth Amendment once.

Mr. Rita is attacking the remedial portion of Booker. That had evolved over a couple years to a point where, in short, Rita  held that a within-guidelines sentence was presumptively reasonable.  Rita appears to be saying (now, beyond what he said before) that judges cannot be held to be presumptively reasonable in issuing a within-guidelines sentence, when the intellectual and logical bases for the guidelines - excluding a lot of personal traits of the defendant from guideline calculations - have been reintroduced as the very reasons why the Executive thought Scooter's sentence was unreasonably harsh.

Tonight, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) will keep the Senate "working through the night" in an effort to force conservatives to stand and filibuster the Levin/Reed plan for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.

The same conservatives filibustering tonight were singing a different tune two years ago. When Democrats held up the confirmation of a few of President Bush's right-wing judicial nominees, conservatives repeatedly complained of "obstructionism."

Senate conservatives had threatened to deploy the "nuclear option," which would have eliminated the traditional Senate practice of filibustering.

We have gone on too long assuming that our right-wing opponents are, in all times and places, unchangeable and unchanging. Yes, their arguments are confoundingly short on evidence and fact. Yes, their logic loops are closed up so tight as to be frustratingly impervious to reason. Yes, they absolutely do mean to do us -- and our democracy -- grievous harm.

Here's the good news. That Great Wall that separates our little reality-based community from The Fantasyland Next Door is not a monolith. Nor are the inmates of that Otherworld necessarily locked in there for all time and eternity. There's evidence -- from scientists, from experience, from history -- that there are cracks in that wall. They are small and subtle, to be sure (that's why nobody's ever noticed them before): at this point, they are mere hairlines, faint traces that are hard to spot without a good flashlight in the hands of someone who knows where to look.
...
It will be slow, thoughtful, methodical work. What I'm offering here is just an opening tour of the rockwork, an explanation of where the cracks are and why they formed. At first, actual opportunities to exploit these weaknesses will be small and fleeting. But my hope is, with time and practice, we'll get more observant, and more creative, and more adroit in taking advantage of them when they appear. That's the goal of this series.
...
Conformity also feeds their sense of themselves as more moral and righteous than others -- a perception that's usually buttressed by the use of magical absolution techniques that they use to "evaporate guilt," in Dean's words. Because they confessed, or are saved, or were just following orders, they can commit heinous crimes and still retain a serene conscience and sense that they are "righteous people." On the other hand, when it comes to outsiders, there is no absolution. Their memory for even minor transgressions is nothing short of elephantine (as Bill Clinton knows all too well).

You can't help but be impressed by the sheer audacity of their strategy. Since the November election, in every situation, the Republicans have responded by not compromising, negotiating or capitulating in even the most minor ways. They have instead aggressively upped the ante.

snip

By running circles around the Dems with obnoxious disregard for the congress and gleefully flouting their own precedents and rhetoric, the president and the Republican minority are almost daring the Democrats to try and stop them. Which is the point. They are going for the big narrative, which is the old stand-by that the Democrats are too soft to run the country: "If they can't stop Mitch McConnell and Lindsay Graham, how can we trust them to stop Osama bin Laden?"