As I stated, the Eighth Amendment alone would have sufficed.
Basically, Scalia was always steadfastly loyal to the Constitution's original intent, except when it conflicted with his religion, his political ideology, or his personal opinion. It's unfortunate to see all these hagiographies being written about him.
The long term of imprisonment of innocent people in the USA is disturbing and perhaps if I was on the Supreme Court I would ave allowed it. But. It sounds like the 8th amendment applies to events after conviction, even if you're not guilty. So the letter of the law has been applied.
Put it this way; if the law is never wrong because you can rely on the good people on the Supreme Court to fix things, then the law will never be changed.
But. It sounds like the 8th amendment applies to events after conviction, even if you're not guilty. So the letter of the law has been applied.
I'm afraid I don't follow you. If you're still being punished after evidence comes to light that you aren't guilty, then you're being "cruelly and unusually punished" by any sane person's definition. The Eighth is applicable, and should have been cited by Scalia to draw the opposite conclusion that he came to.
Since at other times he is a veritable balloon animal artist able to make the constitution support whatever conclusion he wants, I do find him refusing to do it in cases when he could remedy manifest injustice with a stroke of a pen capricious.
Can you find a ".. basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice .."