Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/14-7955_aplc.pdf
Page Number: 50.0

10 

GLOSSIP v. GROSS 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

that their amnesty came in the form of unfounded claims. 
Arbitrariness  has  nothing  to  do  with  it.4   To  the  extent 
that  we  are  ill  at  ease  with  these  disparate  outcomes,  it 
seems to me that the best solution is for the Court to stop 
making  up  Eighth  Amendment  claims  in  its  ceaseless 
quest  to  end  the  death  penalty  through  undemocratic 
means. 

—————— 

4 JUSTICE  BREYER  appears  to  acknowledge  that  our  decision  holding
mandatory  death  penalty  schemes  unconstitutional,  Woodson  v.  North 
Carolina, 428 U. S. 280 (1976) (plurality opinion), may have introduced
the problem of arbitrary application.  Post, at 14.  I agree that Woodson 
eliminated one reliable legislative response to concerns about arbitrari-
ness.  Graham v. Collins, 506 U. S. 461, 486 (1993) (THOMAS, J., concur-
ring).    Because  that  decision  was  also  questionable  on  constitutional
grounds, id., at 486–488, I would be willing to revisit it in a future case.