Just on a purely objective level, isn&#x27;t &quot;terrible&quot; a reasonable adjective to describe someone who wrote this?<p><pre><code>  “There is no basis in text, tradition, or even in 
   contemporary practice (if that were enough), for finding 
   in the Constitution a right to demand judicial 
   consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence 
   brought forward after conviction.”
</code></pre>
Scalia could easily have stated that the Eighth Amendment&#x27;s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment would apply to a case where a defendant was denied the benefit of evidence discovered after conviction.  No one could possibly have argued with that reasoning, or with his right to apply it.  But he didn&#x27;t.<p>A <i>good</i> person would have done a very different thing.