A general view of the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, June 18, 2015. AFP PHOTO/JIM WATSON (Photo credit should read JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images)Supreme Court building exterior
JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images
A general view of the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, June 18, 2015. AFP PHOTO/JIM WATSON (Photo credit should read JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images)Supreme Court building exterior
Now playing
01:37
Supreme Court rules in favor of lethal injection drug
WASHINGTON - FEBRUARY 05:  The U.S. Supreme Court is shown February 5, 2009 in Washington, DC. It was announced today that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had surgery after being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
Win McNamee/Getty Images
WASHINGTON - FEBRUARY 05: The U.S. Supreme Court is shown February 5, 2009 in Washington, DC. It was announced today that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had surgery after being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
Now playing
01:32
SCOTUS: States can force tax on online shoppers
Jack Phillips Today Show
NBC
Jack Phillips Today Show
Now playing
02:18
Colorado baker: I couldn't create this cake
A wedding cake with statuettes of two men is seen during the demonstration in West Hollywood, California, May 15, 2008, after the decision by the California Supreme Court to effectively greenlight same-sex marriage. AFP PHOTO / GABRIEL BOUYS (Photo credit should read GABRIEL BOUYS/AFP/Getty Images)
GABRIEL BOUYS/AFP/AFP/Getty Images
A wedding cake with statuettes of two men is seen during the demonstration in West Hollywood, California, May 15, 2008, after the decision by the California Supreme Court to effectively greenlight same-sex marriage. AFP PHOTO / GABRIEL BOUYS (Photo credit should read GABRIEL BOUYS/AFP/Getty Images)
Now playing
02:04
SCOTUS rules for baker in same-sex cake case
People wait in line to enter the U.S. Supreme Court, on April 23, 2018 in Washington, DC.
Mark Wilson/Getty Images
People wait in line to enter the U.S. Supreme Court, on April 23, 2018 in Washington, DC.
Now playing
01:44
SCOTUS wipes away lower court ruling
how the supreme court picks cases_00000000.jpg
how the supreme court picks cases_00000000.jpg
Now playing
01:39
How the Supreme Court picks its cases
Now playing
01:31
Supreme Court allows parts of travel ban
WASHINGTON - JUNE 25: The exterior view of the U.S. Supreme Court is seen June 25, 2007 in Washington, DC. The Supreme Court has ruled to give more freedom for interest groups and unions to run TV ads before elections, and also ruled to limit taxpayers' rights to challenge government initiatives as unconstitutionally promoting religion. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
File/Alex Wong/Getty Images
WASHINGTON - JUNE 25: The exterior view of the U.S. Supreme Court is seen June 25, 2007 in Washington, DC. The Supreme Court has ruled to give more freedom for interest groups and unions to run TV ads before elections, and also ruled to limit taxpayers' rights to challenge government initiatives as unconstitutionally promoting religion. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Now playing
01:05
Supreme Court throws out NC redistricting maps
Pro-choice activist, Alissa Manzoeillo, of Washington, D.C. waits for rulings in front of the U.S. Supreme Court  on June 27, 2016 in Washington, DC. A ruling is expected in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, a Texas case the places restrictions on abortion clinics, as well as rulings in the former Virginia Governor's corruption case and a gun rights case.
Pete Marovich/Getty Images
Pro-choice activist, Alissa Manzoeillo, of Washington, D.C. waits for rulings in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on June 27, 2016 in Washington, DC. A ruling is expected in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, a Texas case the places restrictions on abortion clinics, as well as rulings in the former Virginia Governor's corruption case and a gun rights case.
Now playing
01:25
Supreme Court rules on Texas abortion law
Obama Supreme Court immigration ruling_00000000.jpg
Obama Supreme Court immigration ruling_00000000.jpg
Now playing
01:16
Obama responds to immigration ruling
The U.S. Supreme Court is shown as the court meets to issue decisions May 23, 2016 in Washington, D.C.
Win McNamee/Getty Images
The U.S. Supreme Court is shown as the court meets to issue decisions May 23, 2016 in Washington, D.C.
Now playing
01:11
Supreme Court upholds affirmative action at university
WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 25: A gay marriage waves a flag in front of the Supreme Court Building June 25, 2015 in Washington, DC. The high court is expected rule in the next few days on whether states can prohibit same sex marriage, as 13 states currently do. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
Mark Wilson/Getty Images
WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 25: A gay marriage waves a flag in front of the Supreme Court Building June 25, 2015 in Washington, DC. The high court is expected rule in the next few days on whether states can prohibit same sex marriage, as 13 states currently do. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
Now playing
01:36
GOP hopefuls denounce marriage ruling
The Justices of the US Supreme Court sit for their official photograph on October 8, 2010 at the Supreme Court in Washington, DC. Front row (L-R): Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Back Row (L-R): Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, Associate Justice Samuel Alito Jr. and Associate Justice Elena Kagan. AFP PHOTO / TIM SLOAN (Photo credit should read TIM SLOAN/AFP/Getty Images)
TIM SLOAN/AFP/Getty Images
The Justices of the US Supreme Court sit for their official photograph on October 8, 2010 at the Supreme Court in Washington, DC. Front row (L-R): Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Back Row (L-R): Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, Associate Justice Samuel Alito Jr. and Associate Justice Elena Kagan. AFP PHOTO / TIM SLOAN (Photo credit should read TIM SLOAN/AFP/Getty Images)
Now playing
01:21
Supreme Court rules on EPA emissions limits
The U.S. Supreme Court is shown March 29, 2016 in Washington, DC following the first 4-4 tie in a case before the court.
Win McNamee/Getty Images
The U.S. Supreme Court is shown March 29, 2016 in Washington, DC following the first 4-4 tie in a case before the court.
Now playing
01:09
Supreme Court rules 7-1 in favor of death row inmate
WASHINGTON, DC - MARCH 26: The exterior of the U.S. Supreme Court on March 26, 2012 in Washington, DC. Today the high court, which has set aside six hours over three days, will hear arguments over the constitutionality President Barack Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
Getty Images
WASHINGTON, DC - MARCH 26: The exterior of the U.S. Supreme Court on March 26, 2012 in Washington, DC. Today the high court, which has set aside six hours over three days, will hear arguments over the constitutionality President Barack Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
Now playing
01:14
Supreme Court rules on congressional districting
(CNN) —  

In a 5-4 ruling in which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the use of a controversial drug for lethal injection in executions Monday, liberal Justice Stephen Breyer, who dissented, called into question the constitutionality of the death penalty, itself.

Breyer’s dissent prompted an impassioned and colorful response from conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, who referred to Breyer’s reasoning as “gobbledy-gook.”

READ: “Jiggery-pokery”: The Best lines from Antonin Scalia’s Obamacare dissent

Here are some highlights from Breyer’s dissent:

1. “For the reasons stated in Justice [Sonia] Sotomayor’s opinion, I dissent from the Court’s holding. But rather than try to patch up the death penalty’s legal wounds one at a time, I would ask for full briefing on a more basic question: whether the death penalty violates the Constitution.”

2. “This Court has specified that the finality of death creates a ‘qualitative difference’ between the death penalty and other punishments (including life in prison) … There is increasing evidence, however, that the death penalty as now applied lacks that requisite reliability.”

3. “Researchers have calculated that courts (or State Governors) are 130 times more likely to exonerate a defendant where a death sentence is at issue. They are nine times more likely to exonerate where a capital murder, rather than a noncapital murder, is at issue … This pressure creates a greater likelihood of convicting the wrong person.”

4. “The problems of reliability and unfairness almost inevitably lead to a third independent constitutional problem: excessively long periods of time that individuals typically spend on death row, alive but under sentence of death.’

5. “The dehumanizing effect of solitary confinement is aggravated by uncertainty as to whether a death sentence will in fact be carried out … Furthermore, given the negative effects of confinement and uncertainty, it is not surprising that many inmates volunteer to be executed, abandoning further appeals.”

READ: Justices Kennedy, Thomas disagree on solitary confinement

Highlights from Scalia’s response to Breyer:

Supreme Court backs use of lethal injection drug

Scalia joined the opinion of the Court, as read by conservative Justice Samuel Alito, but wrote his own response to address Breyer’s call for abolishing the death penalty all together.

1. Scalia began his remarks with the following: “Welcome to Groundhog Day. The scene is familiar: Petitioners, sentenced to die for the crimes they committed (including, in the case of one petitioner since put to death, raping and murdering an 11–month-old baby), come before this Court asking us to nullify their sentences as “cruel and unusual” under the Eighth Amendment … They were duly convicted and sentenced. They were granted the right to appeal and to seek postconviction relief, first in state and then in federal court. And now, acknowledging that their convictions are unassailable, they ask us for clemency, as though clemency were ours to give.”

2. “The response is also familiar: A vocal minority of the Court, waving over their heads a ream of the most recent abolitionist studies (a superabundant genre) as though they have discovered the lost folios of Shakespeare, insist that now, at long last, the death penalty must be abolished for good.”

3. “Even accepting Justice Breyer’s rewriting of the Eighth Amendment, his argument is full of internal contradictions and (it must be said) gobbledy-gook.”

4. “(A caution to the reader: Do not use the creative arithmetic that JUSTICE BREYER employs in counting the number of States that use the death penalty when you prepare your next tax return; outside the world of our Eighth Amendment abolitionist-inspired jurisprudence, it will be regarded as more misrepresentation than math.)”

The role of the Supreme Court is called into question

In his dissent, Breyer acknowledges that many believe that the legality of the death penalty should be determined by legislatures but he insists that since Congress has failed to implement the death penalty in a constitutional manner, the Court must act:

“I recognize a strong counterargument that favors constitutionality. We are a court. Why should we not leave the matter up to the people acting democratically through legislatures? … I recognize that in 1972 this Court, in a sense, turned to Congress and the state legislatures in its search for standards that would increase the fairness and reliability of imposing a death penalty. The legislatures responded. But, in the last four decades, considerable evidence has accumulated that those responses have not worked. Thus we are left with a judicial responsibility.”

This was Scalia’s response:

“Capital punishment presents moral questions that philosophers, theologians, and statesmen have grappled with for millennia. The Framers of our Constitution disagreed bitterly on the matter. For that reason, they handled it the same way they handled many other controversial issues: they left it to the People to decide. By arrogating to himself the power to overturn that decision, Justice Breyer does not just reject the death penalty, he rejects the Enlightenment.”

READ: The best lines from Scalia’s marriage dissent and Kennedy’s decision