Well, that statement doesn't say that's how things should be. I see it as more of an observation/report on how things have been and how they are. I think it is a very limited quote and, if you got to sit down with him, I highly doubt you'd discover that he is for purposefully executing innocent people. But who knows....?

__________________
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw

If you're ever arrested, don't lose your cool. I think this is a good article:
What to Do If The Police Ever Arrest You in The United States | Socyberty

Yes you are right. Taught my kids to do the 'yes sir, yes ma'an' bit and if necessary to be down right obsequious.

__________________

It's in the OP and refers to this:

The Georgia Supreme Court rejected petitioner’s “actual-innocence” claim on the merits, denying his extraordinary 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 cognizable.

Constitutional or not, executing an innocent man is a heinous act in my eyes. It's no better than a hitman killing an innocent man for money, except that this hitman works for the government. At least the "illegal" hitman wouldn't delude himself into thinking that it's okay because the government said so.

I see this as even more ridiculous than the idea that it is okay to raid an innocent man's home and destroy his property because the cop thinks something suspicious is going on.

Of course, Chris Rock also explains it very well:
YouTube - Chris Rock - How not to get your ass kicked by the police!

The constitution only prevents the state from executing someone without due process. As long as they had their due process then I guess there is no constitutional provision that prevents the execution no matter what. There is no constitutional right to live as I found out on this very forum in another post. I know that when an appeals court hears a case they always give effect to the plain language of any law unless it is so ambiguous that it requires interpretation. So maybe that is Scalia's reasoning in that case. He applied the plain meaning of the constitution.

I've never seen that before, I was killing myself laughing

__________________
England has no eternal friends and no eternal enemies, only eternal interests - Palmerston

He doesn't and never has. I have never read one of his opinions I was particularly impressed with.