Legal Commentary

Prof. Alan Dershowitz accuses Justice Scalia of an "outrage against his church" for observing, earlier this week, that the 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."  "[S]urely it is among the worst sins," Prof. Dershowitz insists, "under Catholic teaching [RG:  not just "under Catholic teaching", one hopes!], to kill an innocent human being intentionally.  Yet that is precisely what Scalia would authorize under his skewed view of the United States Constitution.  How could he possibly consider that not immoral under Catholic teachings?  If it is immoral to kill an innocent fetus, how could it not be immoral to execute an innocent person?" 

It would, obviously, be a repulsively immoral exercise of public authority to execute an actually innocent person and it is just as sure that Justice Scalia thinks so.  I'm confused, though:  Weren't we supposed to worry about Catholic justices "imposing" their morality through their decisions or incorporating "Catholic teachings" into the Court's doctrines?