Doing justice is not calling balls and strikes, and to say it is is un-American.

Law is not a matter of “calling balls and strikes.” Rules in baseball define the strike zone, and there is no reason to suppose those rules should change from game to game or batter to batter.

As I need to begin explaining on Monday to my new law students, to suppose that all one needs to do is know the rules and apply them to the infinite complexities of life to come up with decisions, they are sorely mistaken. Edward H. Levi, in a 1948 law review article later expanded into a seminal book, An Introduction to Legal Reasoning, introduces the complexities of legal analysis as well as anyone I have ever read. As he explains, rules announced in earlier cases are applied as is or changed depending on the degree to which the later case is similar or different than the earlier case in which the rule was originally announced:

Thus it cannot be said that the legal process is the application of known rules to diverse facts. Yet it is a system of rules; the rules are discovered in the process of determining similarity or difference. But if attention is directed toward the finding of similarity or difference, other peculiarities appear. The problem for the law is: When will it be just to treat different cases as though they were the same? A working legal system must therefore be willing to pick out key similarities and to reason from them to the justice of applying a common classification. . . .

Edward H. Levi, An Introduction to Legal Reasoning, 15 U. Chi. L. Rev. 501, 501-03 (Spring 1948)(emphasis added; citations omitted).

So if it turns out that a court is ruling in a case in which a criminal defendant who has been convicted of murder but in the twenty years since the crime “[seven] key witnesses have . . . recanted, and several people have charged that the main prosecution witness was the shooter,” it would seem worthwhile before executing the defendant to hold a hearing to determine whether in fact he is innocent. Certainly there must be some amount of evidence that could turn up years after a murder conviction that would convince just about anyone of the convicted man’s innocence.

Would it make sense in a country that requires “due process of the law” to refuse consideration of the new evidence, no matter how strong? Of course not. It is a justice system. It is fair to say, I think, that it is fundamental to American values that we do not execute people for crimes we know they are innocent of.

But what if a court had never permitted a hearing to prove a convicted man’s innocence before? Should that stop the court from permit the new hearing in the new case? Levy’s account of how the law works makes plain that is not the case. The new case is different than the old one in that the post-conviction evidence of innocence is so strong that it simply isn’t similar enough to all the cases in which new hearings were denied to conclude the court could never order a new hearing.

That, however, is exactly what Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas, wrote yesterday:

This court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent. (emphasis in original)

My point is that it is irrelevant as a matter of legal analysis that the court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted murderer who can convince a court (via the constitutional right to a writ of habeus corpus) that he is innocent. Scalia, Thomas, and commentators like Andrew Sullivan are simply wrong on this one. The implication of their logic is that if we knew we were executing an innocent man for a murder he had been convicted of the overriding concern with procedural rules, not justice, would prevent our justice system from doing anything.

That’s bullshit. I apologize for my language, and I hope I would never use it in the classroom, but this particular reasoning by Scalia and of those who would justify it is no part of a justice system, and it is no part of the way U.S. courts have always operated.