He’d just as soon kill inmates as see ’em, apparently.

Our decisions in this area have been animated in part by the recognition that because it is settled that capital punishment is constitutional, “[i]t necessarily follows that there must be a constitutional means of carrying it out.” [.pdf] And because some risk of pain is inherent in any method of execution, we have held that the Constitution does not require the avoidance of all risk of pain. After all, while most humans wish to die a painless death, many do not have that good fortune. Holding that the Eighth Amendment demands the elimination of essentially all risk of pain would effectively outlaw the death penalty altogether.

Er, what? If something is constitutional then anything goes when doing it? I don’t see how it “necessarily follows” at all, Justice Alito. Jeebus, talk about the end justifying the means!

Worse yet, somehow the drug companies’ refusal to sell enabling drugs to death penalty states means they’re to blame if states use drugs with horrific effects on the way to killing somebody.

The nationwide shortage of execution drugs came about in large part because the drug manufacturers themselves refuse to sell their products to be used to kill another human being, and because foreign governments have imposed strict restrictions on the export of certain drugs that can be used in executions. By laying the actions of these private companies and foreign officials at the feet of anti-death penalty advocates generally, Scalia and Alito seem to be suggesting that inmates should be subjected to unconstitutionally painful executions if parties that are not before the Court have rendered lawful executions impossible.

Isn’t that nice and bloodthirsty? And yet they’d both swear they are good, decent Catholic men.