Hooray! Hooray! for today's Los Angeles Times editorial that says Justice Alito "argued histrionically" against the idea of releasing tens of thousands of prisoners onto California's streets.

I'm obviously no Supreme Court historian, but I sure don't remember ever hearing that criticizing  a Justice can lead to a change in decision or even a recall. But I still can't get my head around why there wasn't total accord on whether Constitutional guarantees are being violated in California.

I suppose if only 50 or 60 prisoners die each year because of the effects of overcrowding we should  infer that these violations of the Constitution are limited, and not applicable systemically. But it sounds to me like the risks exist, are costly to the extreme, and have a high enough probability of occurring that they warrant Supreme Court review of the entire system instead of individual cases (presumably after prisoners have died).