Petitioner must rely on Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U. S. 302 (1989), to argue that Texas' special issues framework unconstitutionally limited the discretion of his sentencing jury. I have long maintained, however, that Penry did "so much violence to so many of this Court's settled precedents in an area of fundamental constitutional law, [that] it cannot command the force of stare decisis." Graham v. Collins, 506 U. S. 461, 497 (1993) (concurring opinion). I therefore agree with Justice Scalia that a certificate of appealability cannot be issued based upon an "insubstantial right ... derive[d] from case law in which this Court has long left the Constitution behind and embraced contradiction." Ante, at 2 (dissenting opinion). I respectfully dissent.Polygraph, Lie Detector Police Jobs Cheating Wife Internet Job Search Pitching Police Officer Police Academy Home Builder Start A Daycare

FOOTNOTES

Footnote *

* The Fifth Circuit stated that "a majority of the Court of Criminal Appeals found 'no evidence in this record that [Tennard] is mentally retarded.' " 284 F. 3d, at 596-597. As described above, however, that was the conclusion of a four-judge plurality; the narrowest and thus controlling opinion on this point, correctly described by the Fifth Circuit as "conclud[ing] that there was not enough evidence of mental retardation in the record to support Tennard's claim," id., at 596, n. 5 (emphasis added), is Judge Meyers' concurring opinion.