Does Scalia say 26 smallest states can be a national consensus?

[jody]

The recent SCOTUS case that decided juveniles couldn’t be executed also contained an interesting view in dissent by Justice Scalia.

Justice Scalia, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Thomas, in dissent wrote “Words have no meaning if the views of less than 50% of death penalty States can constitute a national consensus.” See page 66 of 87 at ROPER, SUPERINTENDENT, POTOSI CORRECTIONAL CENTER v. SIMMONS

One way of viewing Scalia’s statement is that 26 states can “constitute a national consensus”.

If so, then the 26 smallest states with a combined population of just over 50 million can form a consensus in opposition to the 24 largest states with their combined population of over 231 million.
:shrug:

[Liberal Veteran]

1. Expecting logic from Scalia is like expecting...

shit to turn into diamonds.

[LSdemocrat]

2. Actually he only refers to DEATH PENALTY states

He doesn't even include states without the death penalty in his percentages.

30 states had already banned executing minors.

[zbdent]

3. Hey, in Repukes' miniscule minds

11 states constitute (pun intended) a "consensus" . . .

[jody]

4. Perhaps "constipate" a national consensus is what Scalia meant.

:hi:

[no_hypocrisy]

5. If this country were a MAJORITARIAN democracy, he could have a point.

Unfortunately, for Scalia et al, this is a CONSTITUTIONAL democracy, and he has to interpret the laws as per the Federal Constitution and its Amendments. The most number of hands in the air is not the standard of decision-making.