WE HAVE AT LEAST TWO FREAKSHOWS ON THE SUPREME COURT

Justices Scalia and Thomas think that beating the shit out of a prisoner does NOT violate the Constitution, not because of any reasonable claim of "original intent," but because of an English law written 100 years before our Constitution was ratified.

Torture memos resemble Clarence Thomas' way of thinking
By David G. Savage
March 7, 2010
LA Times

Over two decades, Thomas and Scalia have repeatedly dissented when the court ruled for prisoners who alleged they were subjected to cruelty. They include an inmate who was handcuffed to a "hitching post" and forced to stand shirtless for seven hours in the hot summer sun of Alabama. Another involved an inmate from Louisiana who was repeatedly punched in the mouth by a guard.

According to Thomas, this harsh treatment did not qualify as cruel and unusual punishment. "Judges -- not jailers -- impose punishment," he wrote.

The two justices explained that the word "punishment" as it was used in the English Bill of Rights in 1689 referred to judges imposing punishment for a crime. Prison guards do not impose "punishment" even if they mete out cruelty, they said.

BONUS FACTOID: John "Torture" Yoo clerked for Thomas.

UPDATE: Emptywheel did a little digging and found that 4 former DOJ lawyers who worked on the criminal Bush regime torture memos also clerked for Thomas:

John Yoo. Clerk, Clarence Thomas,1994 to 1995

Patrick Philbin, Clerk, Clarence Thomas, 1993 to 1994

Jennifer Koester, Clerk, Clarence Thomas, 2004 to 2005

Steven Bradbury, Clerk, Clarence Thomas, 1992 to 1993