Syllabus | Opinion [ OConnor ] | Concurrence [ Scalia ] | Concurrence [ Thomas ] | Dissent [ Stevens ] | Dissent [ Breyer ] |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
HTML version PDF version | HTML version PDF version | HTML version PDF version | HTML version PDF version | HTML version PDF version | HTML version PDF version |
GARY ALBERT EWING, PETITIONER v. CALIFORNIA
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL OF
CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
[March 5, 2003]
Justice Thomas, concurring in the judgment.
I agree with Justice Scalias view that the proportionality test announced in Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983), is incapable of judicial application. Even were Solems test perfectly clear, however, I would not feel compelled by stare decisis to apply it. In my view, the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment contains no proportionality principle. See Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 967985 (1991) (opinion of Scalia, J.).
Because the plurality concludes that petitioners sentence does not violate the Eighth Amendments prohibi-
tion on cruel and unusual punishments, I concur in the judgment.