The argument for placing conservatives on the Supreme Court has always been that they would interpret the Constitution in the strictest manner—that is, they would apply the law as it is written and not find unwritten meaning to suit a political or personal agenda.
What then to make of Justice Scalia's latest defense of torture employed by fictional TV character Jack Bauer from the show 24? Scalia said that fictional or not, federal agents require latitude in times of great crisis.:
"Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles. ... He saved hundreds of thousands of lives," Judge Scalia said. Then, recalling Season 2, where the agent's rough interrogation tactics saved California from a terrorist nuke, the Supreme Court judge etched a line in the sand.
"Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?" Judge Scalia challenged his fellow judges. "Say that criminal law is against him? 'You have the right to a jury trial?' Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I don't think so.
"So the question is really whether we believe in these absolutes. And ought we believe in these absolutes."
By absolutes, I can only assume he means the LAWS and treaties we have banning torture. It appears as though Scalia has a twisted sort of situational morality when it comes to legislation he thinks is silly or unnecessary. So much for the letter of the law.