Out of Egypt:

is this a contradiction?

"In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee [when confirmed as Supreme Court Justice], Scalia said that he considered the most important part of the Constitution to be the system of 'checks and balances among the three branches....so that no one of them is able to "run roughshod" over the liberties of the people.'"

Scalia on 60 Minutes: "Has anyone ever referred to torture as punishment? I don't think so."

What it seems like he's suggesting is that torture is bad in itself, but not constitutionally banned, and thus may justified in certain cases - i.e., to get information necessary for national security. However, the recent scandals of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo show that torture was not being used to get information, but rather to punish people for being suspected terrorists.

In any case, torture is still a violation of civil rights, even if it's not "cruel and unusual punishment," strictly speaking. Scalia may say at the beginning of the interview clip that it is "odious," but his later comments seem to suggest that it may be permitted in certain circumstances. Even if he is right about the definition of "cruel and unusual punishment," I would question his judgment on whether torture can be justifiably (or even practically) used to gain information. Permitting torture - even in what seem to be carefully restricted circumstances - seems to me to be a certain way to "'run roughshod' over the liberties of the people."