In the case of Kimbrough v. United States, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a judge could consider the disparity between sentences for crack and powder cocaine offenses when sentencing a defendant under federal law. Derrick Kimbrough, an African American veteran of the Gulf War, was convicted in 2005 on charges related to possession and intent to distribute both crack and powder cocaine. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines recommended a sentence range of 19-22 years based largely on its controversial 100:1 ratio treating every gram of crack as equivalent to 100 grams of powder cocaine. However, Judge Raymond Jackson deviated from these guidelines due to their inherent racial disparities and sentenced Kimbrough only to 15 years imprisonment instead. The government appealed this decision arguing that such deviations were not reasonable but in December 2007; the Supreme Court upheld Judge Jackson's discretion by a vote of seven justices against two.

I'm sorry, but there seems to be a mistake in your request. The U.S Supreme Court case Kimbrough v. United States was decided in 2007, not 1960. In this case, the court held that judges may deviate from federal sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine offenses. However, if you were referring to the dissenting opinion of Justice Samuel Alito (joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas), it argued that allowing judges such discretion undermines uniformity in sentencing. They contended that Congress clearly intended for there to be a significant disparity between sentences for crimes involving crack versus powder cocaine due to their different societal impacts - with crack being associated with more violence and social harm than powder cocaine. Therefore, they believed it should be up to Congress rather than individual judges or courts to change these guidelines if deemed necessary.