The Supreme Court is extremely selective about what cases should be deferred to states and which should be the realm of the federal courts. They needed to federally abolish affirmative action in college admissions, but when a person is being put to death unjustly that's a state issue. If a website designer hypothetically refuses to design a website for a gay couple that's a federal issue.

Eight amendment should trump any states right rigamarole.

Of course Ianal, but come on. States rights is really just wrangling about accounting and tons of grandstanding between opposing sides of our two party system.

> I mean, if you want to blame someone, blame the involved state for not considering the exculpatory evidence.

I do. But I also wonder about the role of the "highest court in the land", when other courts, state or federal, "decline" to hear appeals with factual evidence of innocence.

I don't think "Too bad, that's the law, just lobby to have it changed" is an acceptable response to someone facing capital punishment.

The federalist system is more complicated than that. To justify taking a case to the federal court system, it has to affect relations between US states, relations between any US entity and a foreign entity, events and actions that take place across state lines, federal laws, or Constitutional amendments. IANAL so the specifics aren't perfectly accurate, but that's roughly where the line is.

If the Supreme Court routinely interferes in matters purely inside of a US state where it has no jurisdiction because no national-level question exists, it could well provoke a constitutional crisis.

The Interstate Commerce clause seems to be available to SCOTUS whenever they want it.

An innocent person put to death despite evidence that would exonerate them is an issue of national-level concern on many levels.

14A says that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".

I think it's reasonable to argue that "due process of law" should not, broadly speaking, involve executing people who are known to be innocent.

Well that's where Scalia's statement comes in - he argues that the state has no duty to avoid executing innocent people, only that all relevant procedures were followed. To use an example from history, if witchcraft was a crime, and the townspeople found someone guilty of witchcraft, they have no duty to accept a time traveller's defense that witchcraft is scientifically impossible and the person is therefore innocent. The "due process" was the trial and witch tests, not a modern scientific consideration of the facts. I don't know Scalia's actual opinion, but I would be surprised if he did not find these witch executions judicially justifiable. Presumably he would argue that the proper way to avoid burning witches at the stake would be to change the laws supporting such activities.

> These decisions seems more about federalism?

They are in part about federalism and in part about the absence of a right to have a verdict reviewed if it was arrived at properly, irrespective of new evidence discovered later.

Were such a right to exist under the Constitutiom, federalism would no longer require the federal courts to stay out of state cases involving such claims, since there would br a justiciable question of federal law.