That is an interesting question. Obama's position appears to be that if a state finds a particular act to be sufficiently egregious then the death penalty is constitutional. Historically that is a problematic argument, since states tend to single out the behavior of despised minorities for harsher penalties. The court's argument that the punishment must fit the crime is less subject to the vagaries of community standards.

Obama's position on this case also raises the question of exactly what sort of people does he intend to appoint to the court?