Examination of Chief Justice Rehnquist's opinions in the eighth amendment area reveals a distinct and consistent pattern of voting for the State and against the defendant making the constitutional challenge. To justify ruling in favor of the State in eight amendment cases, not only does Rehnquist give excessive deference to legislative action, he recasts the Court's prior opinions, often contrary to their plain import, so as to negate an eighth amendment challenge to any statute. Moreover, to accomplish this goal, Rehnquist uses language and tone that unfairly belittle opposing arguments. This dishonest treatment of precedent tarnishes the image and integrity of the Court and has a direct impact on the applicability of prior decisions to habeas corpus petitions. While it may be justifiable to limit the retroactive application of constitutional principles in some manner, failure to apply these constitutional principles based on skewed readings of the Court's precedents is indefensible. 280 footnotes and appendix