I was quoting from memory, but I’ll take this guy’s word for it. From a reader:

Jonah,
You incorrectly assumed that because Justice Thomas thinks a prison beating does not violate a certain constitutional provision, he found it “wasn’t unconstitutional.”
Justice Thomas did not hold that prison beatings were constitutional. He just said they did not violate the Eighth Amendment. Instead, he said a remedy was available under a different amendment:
“Respondents (the guards) concede that if available state remedies were not constitutionally adequate, petitioner would have a claim under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 29 (2002).
If Justice Thomas had said there were no remedy, the New York Times would have been right to call him the “Youngest, Cruelest Justice.” But like many people who criticize judges (from the left and the right), the Times just failed to read the opinion carefully.
You fell into the same trap as the Times, just from the other side.