https://slate.com/news-and-politics...h-eighth-amendment-death-penalty-torture.html
tl;dr, a death row inmate has a rare medical condition that would make lethal injection excruciatingly painful. He petitioned the supreme court to have his punishment either changed or have a different method of execution. The court decided to overturn 60 years of precedent:
"First, Gorsuch rejected Bucklew’s claim, asserting that he failed to prove death by nitrogen would really be “feasible” or less painful. Second, Gorsuch cast doubt on a vast range of precedents built on the “evolving standards of decency” rule by substituting it for the “superadds pain” principle. For instance, Supreme Court rulings outlawing the execution of minors, the mentally disabled, and individuals who committed nonhomicidal crimes all rest on the “evolving standards of decency” rationale. So, too, do decisions that strictly limit the imposition of life without parole on juvenile offenders."
The "superadds" pain principle was not established legal precedent, but was taken from a minority opinion coauthored by Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia several years ago. Their position was considered so radically extreme that at the time they were the lone dissenters.
So what did the court actually achieve here today? In what way does this improve criminal justice outcomes? The inmate was not even asking to have his execution stayed, he merely wanted to pursue a less painful method of execution given his health condition.
tl;dr, a death row inmate has a rare medical condition that would make lethal injection excruciatingly painful. He petitioned the supreme court to have his punishment either changed or have a different method of execution. The court decided to overturn 60 years of precedent:
"First, Gorsuch rejected Bucklew’s claim, asserting that he failed to prove death by nitrogen would really be “feasible” or less painful. Second, Gorsuch cast doubt on a vast range of precedents built on the “evolving standards of decency” rule by substituting it for the “superadds pain” principle. For instance, Supreme Court rulings outlawing the execution of minors, the mentally disabled, and individuals who committed nonhomicidal crimes all rest on the “evolving standards of decency” rationale. So, too, do decisions that strictly limit the imposition of life without parole on juvenile offenders."
The "superadds" pain principle was not established legal precedent, but was taken from a minority opinion coauthored by Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia several years ago. Their position was considered so radically extreme that at the time they were the lone dissenters.
So what did the court actually achieve here today? In what way does this improve criminal justice outcomes? The inmate was not even asking to have his execution stayed, he merely wanted to pursue a less painful method of execution given his health condition.
