Who are the worst judges on the Supreme Court?

[MaryS]

Choose as many jugges that you think are the worst and feel free to explain why you feel that way.

 

[nvxplorer]

I think they’re all qualified. I’m not crazy about Thomas, but that Anita Hill controversy probably taints my view. Roberts was an excellent choice. One of the few by Bush that I admire.

 

[MaryS]

I think they’re all qualified. I’m not crazy about Thomas, but that Anita Hill controversy probably taints my view. Roberts was an excellent choice. One of the few by Bush that I admire.

I agree that they are all qualified. The poll question is about who people here think are the worst. I already had a poll on this forum asking people who their favorites were and the votes put Antonin Scalia at the top with John Paul Stevens in second.

Here's the list of who appointed the judges and what year:

John Paul Stevens ---- appointed by Ford - 1975
Sandra Day O'Connor - appointed by Reagan - 1981
Antonin Scalia -------appointed by Reagan - 1986
Anthony M. Kennedy --- appointed by Reagan - 1988
David H. Souter ------ appointed by G.H.W. Bush - 1990
Clarence Thomas ------appointed by G.H.W. Bush - 1991
Ruth Bader Ginsburg -- appointed by Clinton - 1993
Stephen G. Breyer ---- appointed by Clinton - 1994
John Roberts ---------appointed by G.W. Bush - 2005

wikipedia has plenty of background info on each of the judges

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Paul_Stevens

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandra_Day_O%27Connor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonin_Scalia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Souter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Breyer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Roberts

 

[nvxplorer]

I agree that they are all qualified. The poll question is about who people here think are the worst. I already had a poll on this forum asking people who their favorites were and the votes put Antonin Scalia at the top with John Paul Stevens in second.

Yeah, saying they’re all qualified is misleading. What I mean is that they are equally competent, therefore, I don’t view any as being worse than any others. I have the utmost respect for the Supreme Court. People are quick to jump on SC justices based on politics. I don’t play that game. While each member has his own political ideology, I believe they don’t let themselves become swayed by politics. The Court must remain independent from political forces, and they have operated satisfactorily in this regard. In my opinion, of course.

 

[Moros]

All of them. If they were voted for by the public, I might be inclined to examine their strong suits.

 

[Voegelin]

Breyer and Ginsberg make no secret that they act as supra-legislators. Both also gleefully and openly say the Supreme Court should consider foreign law when making decisions. Sandra Day O'Connor was an arbitrator who decided cases based on what the political winds of the movement were and tried to please all parties. Anthony M. Kennedy is more interested in what Linda Greenhouse thinks than the constitution. Souter is your run-of-the-mill activist who could care less about the statutory law except as it hinders him imposing his views on the entire country. John Paul Stevens does the same and hangs around only because he has nothing else to do.

 

[freealaska]

Breyer and Ginsberg make no secret that they act as supra-legislators. Both also gleefully and openly say the Supreme Court should consider foreign law when making decisions. Sandra Day O'Connor was an arbitrator who decided cases based on what the political winds of the movement were and tried to please all parties. Anthony M. Kennedy is more interested in what Linda Greenhouse thinks than the constitution. Souter is your run-of-the-mill activist who could care less about the statutory law except as it hinders him imposing his views on the entire country. John Paul Stevens does the same and hangs around only because he has nothing else to do.

Well we're all entitled to our opinions.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Breyer and Ginsberg make no secret that they act as supra-legislators. Both also gleefully and openly say the Supreme Court should consider foreign law when making decisions. Sandra Day O'Connor was an arbitrator who decided cases based on what the political winds of the movement were and tried to please all parties. Anthony M. Kennedy is more interested in what Linda Greenhouse thinks than the constitution. Souter is your run-of-the-mill activist who could care less about the statutory law except as it hinders him imposing his views on the entire country. John Paul Stevens does the same and hangs around only because he has nothing else to do.

Wow. Good thing all the Court's traditional conservatives are without flaw.

 

[HumbleMan]

Breyer and Ginsberg make no secret that they act as supra-legislators. Both also gleefully and openly say the Supreme Court should consider foreign law when making decisions. Sandra Day O'Connor was an arbitrator who decided cases based on what the political winds of the movement were and tried to please all parties. Anthony M. Kennedy is more interested in what Linda Greenhouse thinks than the constitution. Souter is your run-of-the-mill activist who could care less about the statutory law except as it hinders him imposing his views on the entire country. John Paul Stevens does the same and hangs around only because he has nothing else to do.

I do have issues with some of the rulings by the liberal side of the bench, but why would you characterize Breyer and Ginsburg as gleefully saying that foriegn law is relevant? I can't see Ginsburg being gleeful about anything.

Also, I do have issues with Scalia's ethics stemming back to those hunting trips and the energy panel fiasco.

 

[Voegelin]

OK for Ginsberg to have worked for the ACLU, hang out today with marxist activists but not OK for Scalia to take a hunting trip with Cheney.

Uh..right.

Does anyone read the decisions? In the Ten Commandments cases, the liberals made so sense at all. They referred to their own decisions to justify that one. The result was a split decision which is pure gibberish.

 

[Alarum]

OK for Ginsberg to have worked for the ACLU, hang out today with marxist activists but not OK for Scalia to take a hunting trip with Cheney.

Uh..right.

Does anyone read the decisions? In the Ten Commandments cases, the liberals made so sense at all. They referred to their own decisions to justify that one. The result was a split decision which is pure gibberish.

What, the decision where Scalia referenced the opinion of foreigners in his dissent? Confusing, I agree.

 

[TeddyKGB]

OK for Ginsberg to have worked for the ACLU, hang out today with marxist activists but not OK for Scalia to take a hunting trip with Cheney.

Uh..right.

Ginsberg was not yet a SC justice when she worked for the ACLU, correct?

Does anyone read the decisions? In the Ten Commandments cases, the liberals made so sense at all. They referred to their own decisions to justify that one. The result was a split decision which is pure gibberish.

No doubt each and every liberal opinion was "pure gibberish" just as you say, but do you have any specific examples for my own edification?

 

[nvxplorer]

OK for Ginsberg to have worked for the ACLU, hang out today with marxist activists but not OK for Scalia to take a hunting trip with Cheney.

Which Marxist activists does Ginsberg hang out with? What’s wrong with working for the ACLU? Cheney had a case before the court. That’s why the hunting trip gives an image of impropriety.

Does anyone read the decisions? In the Ten Commandments cases, the liberals made so sense at all. They referred to their own decisions to justify that one. The result was a split decision which is pure gibberish.

Is this really a big issue with you? Leave ’em there, take ’em down, what difference does it make? We have far more pressing issues that the Ten Commandments on government property. How’s this for a compromise. Leave all the presently standing displays in place, and prohibit the erecting of more.

 

[MaryS]

Cheney had a case before the court. That’s why the hunting trip gives an image of impropriety.

While that may seem improper to some, it certainly would not cause someone like Antonin Scalia from not properly enforcing the law and upholding the constitution.

The Cheney case was a bit confusing and I didn't hear much about it, but the judges were rather mixed in their normal sides on the case. Ginsburg and Souter seem to be the only two who were isolated in their opinions.

Cheney v. United States Dist. Court for D.C.
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-475.ZS.html
(excerpt:
Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Stevens, O’Connor, and Breyer, JJ., joined, and in which Scalia and Thomas, JJ., joined as to Parts I, II, III, and IV. Stevens, J., filed a concurring opinion. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Scalia, J., joined. Ginsburg, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Souter, J., joined.

---------------------

I would never think that Scalia would not uphold the law after how he went after Rumsfeld:

In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Scalia's dissent was the most restrictive upon the government's power to deal with U.S. citizens alleged to be "unlawful combatants," arguing that legally there was no basis for such a designation and that ordinary criminal prosecution was effectively the only option.

-------------

More interesting info from wikipedia regarding Scalia:

Scalia's generally strict approach usually puts him on the conservative side of the Court, but occasionally brings results that the current conservative administration disagrees with. He notably joined the majority without qualification in Texas v. Johnson, which ruled that flag burning was protected speech.

In Ring v. Arizona, Scalia re-affirmed his view that only a jury — and not a judge — could impose the death penalty, writing, "We cannot preserve our veneration for the protection of the jury in criminal cases if we render ourselves callous to the need for that protection by regularly imposing the death penalty without it." Leading on directly and logically from Ring, Scalia wrote for the majority in Blakely v. Washington, which sent shock waves through both the state and federal criminal sentencing systems by ruling that sentences could not be increased because of facts determined by judges rather than juries.

Scalia has proved to be what some call "libertarian" in certain cases; for instance, in a 5-4 ruling, Scalia found that the government could not use a thermal imaging device to scan one's home unless there was a warrant. In 2004, Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion that the president could not detain enemy combatants; the only other member of the court to share his views was the liberal judge, John Paul Stevens.

 

[nvxplorer]

While that may seem improper to some, it certainly would not cause someone like Antonin Scalia from not properly enforcing the law and upholding the constitution.

I’m not accusing anyone of impropriety. (I was simply explaining the issue to Voegelin.) I will accuse Scalia of making an unwise choice, however. There’s no reason he and Cheney had to go hunting at that particular time. The ducks would be happy to wait until next season. In cases like this, any impression of possible misconduct is as damaging as actual misconduct. There are numerous ways the two could have collaborated, so I think it’s foolish to point to the hunting trip and make accusations. Which in itself, makes the hunting trip even more of a foolish decision. I trust Scalia’s integrity, but he should have went hunting with someone else.

 

[MaryS]

I’m not accusing anyone of impropriety. (I was simply explaining the issue to Voegelin.) I will accuse Scalia of making an unwise choice, however. There’s no reason he and Cheney had to go hunting at that particular time. The ducks would be happy to wait until next season. In cases like this, any impression of possible misconduct is as damaging as actual misconduct. There are numerous ways the two could have collaborated, so I think it’s foolish to point to the hunting trip and make accusations. Which in itself, makes the hunting trip even more of a foolish decision. I trust Scalia’s integrity, but he should have went hunting with someone else.

Probably a bad decision, timing-wise, on Scalia's part. However, if the trip was already planned before the case was on the docket for the Supreme Court, there might have been rumors even if he had then cancelled the trip.

As it is, since he sided with Kennedy, Breyer, Stevens, and the majority of the court on that case, it's of little consequence.



Earlier this year, I posted a poll in this forum asking people who their favorite judges were. It's interesting how different the polls look so far. Scalia was the favorite on that poll and now he's leading as the worst.

I found the link to the other poll in this forum, if anyone wants to look at it:
http://www.christianforums.com/t2226346-favorite-supreme-court-judges.html

 

[MaryS]

I still find it hard to believe that Antonin Scalia got the most votes in this poll.

Scalia not only was one of the 5 judges you can thank for a right to burn the flag, but he was also one of the 4 that tried to preserve our property rights and one of the 2 that was most harsh on the government use of the Patriot Act and other things some people consider snooping.

The second flag-burning case was much closer because of the flag protection act that congress passed.

United States vs. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990) was a United States Supreme Court case that invalidated a federal law against flag desecration as violative of free speech under the First Amendment to the Constitution. It was argued together with the case United States v. Haggerty.

The case involved a challenge to the 1989 Flag Protection Act, which forbade the burning or other desecration of the American flag, while allowing for burning as a means of proper disposal of worn or soiled flags. The Act was passed in response to the Court's controversial 1989 decision in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), which upheld flag burning as an act of protected speech under the First Amendment.
The defendant in United States vs. Eichman, Shawn Eichman, had burnt an American flag on the steps of the United States Capitol to protest American foreign and domestic policy. Mark Haggerty, in the jointly decided case, had burnt a flag in Seattle, Washington.
The case was argued on May 14, 1990 and decided on June 11. In a 5-4 decision (with voting lines identical to the result in Texas vs. Johnson), the Court reaffirmed Johnson and struck down the law against flag burning, stating that the government's interest in preserving the flag as a symbol did not outweigh the individual right to disparage that symbol through expressive conduct.
Justice William J. Brennan, who retired at the end of this term, wrote the Court's opinion. He was joined by Justices Thurgood Marshall, Harry A. Blackmun, Antonin Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy.

The dissenting opinion, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, opposed striking down the law. Stevens was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Byron R. White and Sandra Day O'Connor.

 

[MaryS]

I just checked the votes again and it's also funny that some of the people that seemed to be in favor of legalizing marijuana picked Clarence Thomas as the worst judge. Thomas had the strongest dissent on the most recent case that ruled in favor of federal regulation of marijuana.

If you like the federal government to tell the states that they can't have marijuana even for medical purposes, then Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer are the judges that will keep it that way. Personally, I think the states should be allowed to decide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich) is a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled on June 5, 2005 that under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution which allows the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce ... among the several States," Congress may ban the use of marijuana even where states approve its use for medicinal purposes.

John Ashcroft is in the case's name because he was Attorney General when the case was filed. The case was renamed when Alberto Gonzales became Attorney General.

Majority by: Stevens
Joined by: Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer

Concurrence by:Scalia
Dissent by: O'Connor
Joined by: Rehnquist (Parts I and II), Thomas (Parts I and II)
Dissent by: Thomas

 

[Alarum]

Thomas isn't an idiot, but he is the largest believer in judicial activism on the court currently. His refusal to pay any attention to past decisions means he's often on the radical end of things. Strangely, in his own way, he's also more radical then Scalia. Scalia at least has justifications for his opinions, and in my opinion he's a balancing factor on the court, a persuasive arguer, and he does follow law.

I like Thomas's interpretation of the Commerace clause, but his philosophy seems to trump his constitutional readings sometimes. How he could call prison guards beating prisoners anything besides 'cruel and unusual punishment' is beyond me (Court ruled 7-2 it was). And his ruling in Hamdi versus Rumsfeld was exceptionally painful. Eight justices said that the US government does not have the right to indefinately hold prisoners. That number should have been nine. Scalia's dissenting agreement (he was part of the 8, but dissented with the limitations on their ruling) was by far and away the most 'originalist' view, and the one I feel should have been carried.

No, Thomas's ruling in that matter was unacceptable. The man should never have been appointed, he's by far and away the most political judge.

 

[MaryS]

Of the judges currently on the bench, Clarence Thomas is definitely the most controversial and the one I consider to be farthest to the right.

I guess the Senate felt the same way because he had the most opposition of any of the judges when the Senate affirmed him to the bench.

The Senate vote for Clarence Thomas was 52 to 48.
The Senate vote for Antonin Scalia was 98 to 0.
The Senate vote for David Souter was 90 to 9, and all 9 opponents were Democrats.
The Senate vote for Ruth Bader Ginsburg was 96 to 3.
The Senate vote for Stephen Breyer was 87 to 9.