And the affirmation was decided by.... THE JUDGE.

No, retard. Like spanktheduck said, "affirm" is a legal term of art. What the judge issued is called a judgment. When the judgment is issued, either the government or the defendant may appeal from the judgment. At that point, the Court of Appeals for the relevant circuit decides whether to "affirm" or "reverse" (or "vacate") the judgment. The order from the Circuit Court may then be appealed to the Supreme Court, which may once again "affirm" or "reverse" the Circuit Court's ruling.

Mandatory/minimums do not handicap the consciousness and morality of the judge. They are still capable of filing a dozen different orders to justify why '55 years' would be an unconstitutional punishment.

District court judges are not just going find a mandatory minimum sentencing regime unconstitutional unless there is binding precedent upon them which has been issued by a higher court (i.e., a Circuit Court or the Supreme Court). Questions of constitutional significance are always going to be guided by the decisions of the Supreme Court, so absent a prior opinion by the Supreme Court, it's always more sensible to sentence according to the statute, let the defendant appeal, and then wait to hear from the Supreme Court to decide whether it's constitutional or not. Since the Supreme Court clearly must have declined to take the case up on certiorari, they've implicitly found that it is constitutional. If the judge at the district court level had found the statute unconstitutional, then the government would have appealed, it would have gone to the Supreme Court, they would taken the case, they would have reversed the district court, and the defendant would be remanded back for sentencing consistent with the Supreme Court opinion.

Real cute to jump on the bandwagon of calling people "edgy" though. Just keep that ass flapping and you'll go far in life, kid.