Mark Crispin Miller Reference:
Scalia's Opinion on a case esssentially calling the constitutional protection of innocence null!:
"The Georgia Supreme Court rejected petitioner's
"actual-innocence" claim on the merits, denying
his extraor-dinary motion for a new trial. Davis
can obtain relief only if that determination was
contrary to, or an unreasonable application of,
"clearly established Federal law, as determined
by the Supreme Court of the United States." It
most assuredly was not. 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. Quite to
the contrary, we have repeatedly left that
question unresolved, while expressing
considerable doubt that any claim based on
alleged "actual innocence" is constitutionally
Essentially this is saying that there is no protection of innocence in the Constitution.
How can any sane or moral person claim such insouciance?
The decision stands as a sign of his deteriorating mental capacity. Would he have the capacity to resign?