It is interesting that Justices of Scalia's bent (i.e. to the right) often complain that other justices live in an "ivory tower" and ignore the "real world." Scalia is a perfect example of how a rightward judge can be just as blind to the world around ( or should we say "below"? ) him as anyone else. To him the Constitution is an intellectual exercise, and his pronouncements on the 'rules' are as binding as a professor listing "givens" on a law school test. Educated at elite schools, whisked off onto an escalator of choice jobs that keep them from mixing with the 'hoi polloi', most of our top judges really don't have a clue how the "justice system" really works for most Americans. After all, this is the same Scalia who suggests (rather strongly) that civil lawsuits under section 1983 could actually replace the "exclusionary rule" in protecting Americans from their own government. Yes, I suppose in a textbook that might be the case. But the world is not a textbook, and our judges need to know that. Not all judges of the SC or Federal Circuit are of that ilk, but those with 'alternative' backgrounds are becoming more rare all the time. Justices like Marshall (or O'Connor from the other party) at least had an opportunity to feel themselves the impact of the "real world" long before they reached the bench. (Marshall, obviously, as an African American from the segregration era, O'Connor couldn't land a good job at firswt because she was a female).

We don't need any more idealogues - right or left. Adherence to the Constitution does not demand that a judge wear blinkers about the differences between the Constitution's written goals and its actual implementation. Rather, judges should be able to see both in order to close the gap. Scalia is like a fundamentalist scholar who worships the Torah and ignores the world to spend his whole life studying it and arguing over it, with little concept of how or even whether such arguments influence the "real world" of average people living around him. Innocent or Guilty? What could it matter if the sacred text doesn't worry about it?

Mr. Scalia may view his job as a game, but the rules of the game that Scalia plays have only a passing resemblance to the Constitution.

No thinking man (or woman) could reconcile the cruel and unusual clause with Scalia's statements to the effect that torture is not prohibited by the eight amendment, nor Scalia's statement regarding the futility of actual innocence:

""[t]his 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."

Well, Mr. Scalia, if the court has never made such a finding, there is no time like NOW. Read the words, Mr. Scalia, of this document you to which you appear to have so little familiarity:

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

look Halley, at a gut level, Scalia just likes the idea of killing people. So do many others. It is a primitive instinct remnant of our barbaric past, like joy in hunting. Ain't no logic gonna change that.