For all you legal eagles out there I need your input. My bo wants me to post the following. He's working on a blakely petition. He states"Is Blakely v. Washington a new rule that constitutes a new meaning that breaks new grounds within the Pennsylvania legislature thereby abolishing the holding in McMillan v. PA over facts that increase ones sentence. Should I correctly read Blakely, the state of PA must overrule prior existing precedent of aggravating factors and fall in line with due process and the sixth amendment jury trial guarantee. Please assist the above interpretation with legislative retroactivity v. judicial ineptitude." Your thoughts please?