jmatonak

“This court has never held,” Justice Scalia wrote, “that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent.” -- New York Times.

Oh, Nino, no.

"There's no precedent for this!" is a stupid argument, especially in this case. You're arguing that someone should be executed for your procedural convenience. (Roberts actually gave you a pro-snuffing precedent, but that opinion was fucking stupid.) We can walk back through a long line of things the Court "never held"- until it did. One of the things the Supreme Court is for is overturning precedents, and you know it, and you've done it. It's amazing how much precedents matter to you when you agree, and how much they don't when you don't.

Oh, well. Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue, and maybe precedent should be revered. But I'm getting off the train when the argument is, "hey, wait, the fact that this guy is innocent makes bureaucracy uncomfortable."

Nino Scalia, ladies and gentlemen. What a maroon.