On Monday the court denied review in Walker v. Georgia, a case revolving around the court’s proportionality standard applied to the death penalty. The court has long struggled to find an adequate means of countering racist bias within the capital system and there is little doubt that the issue will rear its ahead again in the future.

For now, however, the court has pushed the issue aside. The case was not accepted and only Justices Stevens made his opposition known. In his statement (there is no dissent against a denial of cert.) he argued that Supreme Court of Georgia gave incomplete proportionality review. In doing so, he argues, they are furthering the “arbitrary or discriminatory imposition of death sentences in contravention of the Eighth Amendment.”

Justice Thomas wrote in a concurrence (which are allowed in cert. denials,) that proportionality is not a required test and that their proportionality test was correctly applied. He also echoes the sentiment of the majority in McCleskey v. Kemp that found “[a]pparent discrepancies are an inevitable part of our criminal justice system.”


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Categories

Random Posts

  • Another Elena Kagan - Miguel Estrada Connection: Justice Kagan and Miguel Estrada have had a long relationship that has confounded and surprised many of their skeptics. At Kagan's confirmat...
  • Updated Term Statistics: I've updated the term statistics and you can find the new versions of each chart below: Complete (includes all three charts) --- Term I...
  • Updates: I've updated a lot of the information on the Term Case Index in preparation for today's cases. I expect the Supreme Court to hand down 1-2 o...
  • Should the Supreme Court have Appointed Amici in the Healthcare Cases?: The Supreme Court's decision last week to appoint H. Bartow Farr and Robert Long to argue in the ACA cases follows in a long tradition of ap...
  • A Classic Oral Argument Passage: Today's New York Times article about Paul Clement, "Lawyer Opposing Health Law is Familiar Face to the Justices", reminds me of an interesti...