I'm particularly fond of a few of them. As far as Listening to them Speak and reading their Speeches and that sort of thing, I'm fond of Scalia. I think he's a Monster of a Man and I despise nearly everything he stands for, but his sense of humor and sharp wits make him worthy of attention.

 

"Some people urge a Moderate reading of the Constitution. What is that, really? Halfway between what is says and what you wish that it said?"

 

I agree with him moderately! but I find things like that funnier than anything else.

 

I'm fond of David Souter, but that may just be because of how much he pisses the Republicans off. I like John Roberts, because he's funny, fair and charming, I've found. Breyer is a nice, smart, able man, I think. John Paul Stevens is great. If he were half a century younger, I wish someone had made him Chief Justice.

 

Clarence Thomas, Tony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor are my least favorites. (Even though I know Sandy's gone.) Alito is up there, too, on my least liked, and so's Ginsburg. Ruth Bader just doesn't do it for me in any sense of the term.

Ruth Bader.....mmm mmmm mmm.

 

Seriously though, I have mucho respect for John Roberts.

bader-ginsburg is the worst. believes prostitution and drugs should be legalized and that it is allowed by the constitution. ultra-liberal, always know where shes going to vote. plus, she is a frickin' eyesore. that said, we need all sides of a supreme court issue to be examined, so we do need bader-ginsburgs on the court too.

 

scalia is great because after reading a lot of opinions from all the judges, he seems to break things down more logically than the others and makes them very understandable. His decisions i also find very logical. hes also very sarcastic, and i love that.

I'd have to say I'm most impressed at the way Clarence Thomas measures up . . . at least to hear him tell it.

bader-ginsburg is the worst. believes prostitution and drugs should be legalized and that it is allowed by the constitution. ultra-liberal, always know where shes going to vote. plus, she is a frickin' eyesore. that said, we need all sides of a supreme court issue to be examined, so we do need bader-ginsburgs on the court too.

 

 

Your cogent reasons have convinced me!

 

The sentence after the bold I agree with, an all right or all left court would be bad for the nation.

Nice Long Dong Silver reference!

 

I'd say Thomas is just as predictable. He seems to come off as Scalia's lapdog.

Stephen Breyer... He's the smartest guy on the bench. He's Scalia's intellectual sparring partner from the moderate left side of the bench.

 

Though I tend to disagree with Scalia most of the time (except in the rare instance that he contradicts himself like in Raich last year), I appreciate his approach to his cases. He writes a ton of opinions, since he often dissents or concurs on different terms as the others. If you get a majority written by Breyer and a Dissent by Scalia, its usually going to be a pretty fascinating case.

 

The worst is Thomas. The man has no appreciation of precedent at all. He's the windsock/jay marriotti of the court. Clearly the dumbest of the group.

I'd probably have to say Scalia because of his strict, narrow adherence to the Constitution rather than a broad interpretation. Unfortunately, he's also an arrogant and polarizing figure. I'm hoping that Roberts and Alito will follow Scalia and Rhenquist's narrow interpretation of the Constitution.

He's the windsock/jay marriotti of the court.

 

 

ouch!

 

"you remind me of Jay Mariotti"... the ultimate insult.

I can't imagine that they talk much about the SCOTUS over on the Cubs boards. Well, I take that back. There is the whole gay marriage thing going on so maybe they do.

I'm particularly fond of a few of them. As far as Listening to them Speak and reading their Speeches and that sort of thing, I'm fond of Scalia. I think he's a Monster of a Man and I despise nearly everything he stands for, but his sense of humor and sharp wits make him worthy of attention.

 

"Some people urge a Moderate reading of the Constitution. What is that, really? Halfway between what is says and what you wish that it said?"

 

I agree with him moderately! but I find things like that funnier than anything else.

 

I'm fond of David Souter, but that may just be because of how much he pisses the Republicans off. I like John Roberts, because he's funny, fair and charming, I've found. Breyer is a nice, smart, able man, I think. John Paul Stevens is great. If he were half a century younger, I wish someone had made him Chief Justice.

 

Clarence Thomas, Tony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor are my least favorites. (Even though I know Sandy's gone.) Alito is up there, too, on my least liked, and so's Ginsburg. Ruth Bader just doesn't do it for me in any sense of the term.

 

i agree...i don't like his rulings but his opinions are so much fun to read in my poli sci class. All the people on the court are so brilliant i have loads of respect for them.(unless thomas puts a pubic hair on my coke ! dammit!

I forgot what a creepy magazine cover that was.

 

Ah, Anita, alive and well in the annals of SCOTUS confirmation trivia.

Well, hands down my favorite ex-SCOTUS is Sandra Day O'Connor, particularly after the speech she gave on Wednesday. It was brave enough of her to say that Republican leaders' attacks on the courts threaten our constitutional freedoms. But to tag the likes of the current administration as a dictatorship in the making takes a lot of backbone. Paraphrasing, she said that it takes time to become a full dictatorship but it's better to stop the slide at the beginning than the end.

 

 

Audio is here:

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5255712

But to tag the likes of the current administration as a dictatorship in the making takes a lot of backbone.  Paraphrasing, she said that it takes time to become a full dictatorship but it's better to stop the slide at the beginning than the end.

 

I'd say it's more "paranoia" and "political slant" than "backbone." I'm glad that she retired.

I'd probably have to say Scalia because of his strict, narrow adherence to the Constitution rather than a broad interpretation.  Unfortunately, he's also an arrogant and polarizing figure.  I'm hoping that Roberts and Alito will follow Scalia and Rhenquist's narrow interpretation of the Constitution.

 

 

This will make the line item veto case very interesting if it ever gets approved and then sent to the SCOTUS

I'd say it's more "paranoia" and "political slant" than "backbone."  I'm glad that she retired.

 

I'm sure you are.

 

Pre Kristallnacht, the citizenry of Germany and Austria didn't realize what they had on their hands either.

I'm sure you are.

 

Pre Kristallnacht, the citizenry of Germany and Austria didn't realize what they had on their hands either.

 

I'm glad she gave that speech. I am somewhat concerned that Bush and Co. are trying to circumvent the constitution, or at least lay the ground work for the eventual circumventing of the constitution. It's possible.

I'm sure you are.

 

Pre Kristallnacht, the citizenry of Germany and Austria didn't realize what they had on their hands either.

 

Comparing the Bush administration to Nazi Germany? Oh, that's rich. No wonder nobody listens to liberals anymore.

Edited March 10, 200620 yr by WCSox

Comparing the Bush administration to Nazi Germany?  Oh, that's rich.  No wonder nobody listens to liberals anymore. 

 

I agree, of course there is a difference between Hitler and GWB. And that is that Hitler was actually elected. :rolly

I agree, of course there is a difference between Hitler and GWB.  And that is that Hitler was actually elected.  :rolly

 

Now you see? Here I was actually agreeing with you on a point and then you go and take a s***ty liberal shot like that.

I agree, of course there is a difference between Hitler and GWB.  And that is that Hitler was actually elected.  :rolly

 

I can't believe that you people are still crying about the 2000 election. Are you Michael Moore in disguise?

Now you see?  Here I was actually agreeing with you on a point and then you go and take a s***ty liberal shot like that.

 

Yeah, I know. But I was just pushing back against WCSox s***tty wingnut shot.

Yeah, I know.  But I was just pushing back against WCSox s***tty wingnut shot.

 

Looking at things from your perspective, I can understand that. I withdraw my objection.

I can't believe that you people are still crying about the 2000 election.    Are you Michael Moore in disguise? 

 

Yes. Yes I am.