Recently, the US Supreme Court passed an order for an “innocence hearing” to be held in the case of a man convicted of murder after doubts arose over his guilt. But a couple of judges dissented. Among them is Scalia. And this is his defense-
This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent.
Dropping the two negatives, it means that the Court is not concerned with “actual” innocence, only with “legal” innocence. Apparently, he would follow anything written in the Constitution as long as it is not against his religion (he’s a Catholic) in which case he would resign. The thought that a proper Constitution is merely the written form of a particular idea of justice and rights, and that its the idea that must be defended probably never crossed his mind.
The Goddess of Justice is popularly depicted wearing a blindfold and holding a measuring scale in one hand. The blindfold is meant to represent impartiality, not the refusal to see facts. Which is what “Justice” Scalia would be doing if he allowed an innocent man to die when fully aware of the fact of his innocence.
