another case to analyze lawfag keeping too busy so many winning - this one death penalty used as MSM launch attack on Gorsuch announced today- so what habbened? here is the headline and media narrative: "In an appalling death penalty opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch just overturned 60 years of precedent." Other headlines massive hyperbole "legalized torture" and so on
HERES THE LAW - a State’s refusal to alter its execution protocol could violate the Eighth Amendment only if an inmate first identified a “feasible, readily implemented” alternative procedure that would “significantly reduce a substantial risk of severe pain.
HERES THE FACTS - Russell Bucklew was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. The State of Missouri plans to execute him by lethal injection using a single drug, pentobarbital. Mr. Bucklew alleged that, regardless whether it would cause excruciating pain for all prisoners, it would cause him severe pain because of his particular medical condition. (No info was published on his "particular" condition and lawfag guesses that he was scart shitless and thought that would be enuf)
The lower courts ruled that the State was not required to make any changes and Bucklew appealed to SCOTUS
HERES THE RULING - The Eighth Amendment forbids “cruel and unusual” methods of capital punishment but does not guarantee a prisoner a painless death. As originally understood, the Eighth Amendment tolerated methods of execution, like hanging, that involved a significant risk of pain, while forbidding as cruel only those methods that intensified the death sentence by “superadding”terror, pain, or disgrace.
A prisoner must show 1) a feasible and readily implemented alternative method that would 2) significantly reduce a substantial risk of severe pain and that 3) the State has refused to adopt without a legitimate reason.
Here the prisoner failed on all three requirements. Judgment affirmed.
NO TORTURE
NOT HYPERBOLE
NO CHANGES IN THE LAW
A COMPLETE FAKE NEWS NOTHING BURDER
sauce a pdf of the ruling here
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-8151_1qm2.pdf