# Favorite Supreme Court Justice



## LotharoftheHillPeople (Apr 30, 2006)

The title says it all. Living or dead. And if you feel so inclined, why? This should be like catnip for some of ya'll.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

Clarence Thomas


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

William O Douglas


----------



## romafan (Apr 29, 2005)

Douglas/Brennan. CT for comic relief....


----------



## radix023 (May 3, 2007)

Living: Clarence Thomas - he got me with his dissent on the civil forfeiture case.

Dead: Louis Brandeis - he got me with his dissent on wiretapping

One day I hope to like Supreme Court Justices for decisions they *do* make. So far the best case I've got is the Beck decision.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I like Scalia, but this one by Thomas is amazing

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-1107.ZD.html
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-1107.ZX.html
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-1107.ZS.html


----------



## LotharoftheHillPeople (Apr 30, 2006)

ksinc said:


> https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-1107.ZD.html
> 
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-1107.ZS.html


I don't get it.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

LotharoftheHillPeople said:


> I don't get it.


Sorry, I edited my post to hopefully make more sense.

I like Scalia, but CT almost won me over with that dissent.

It requires some back-reading of the majority opinion.


----------



## LotharoftheHillPeople (Apr 30, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Sorry, I edited my post to hopefully make more sense.
> 
> I like Scalia, but CT almost won me over with that dissent.
> 
> It requires some back-reading of the majority opinion.


No need to apologize, I just wasn't sure which Justice you were referring to. Scalia, whether or not you agree with his jurisprudence, is always an entertaining speaker.


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

Potter Stewart. He really impressed me when he came to speak to our Con Law class a couple of times in law school. There was an aura about him when he walked into a room. Very smart but down to earth. He also had, I thought, an amazing resemblance in his speech and mannerisms to the actor William Holden. And I've always liked a lot of his opinions.



The two other S.Ct. justices I've met, Byron "Whizzer" White and John Paul Stevens, were nice enough but did not leave any major impression on me.


----------



## romafan (Apr 29, 2005)

Beresford said:


> Potter Stewart. He really impressed me when he came to speak to our Con Law class a couple of times in law school. There was an aura about him when he walked into a room. Very smart but down to earth. He also had, I thought, an amazing resemblance in his speech and mannerisms to the actor William Holden. And I've always liked a lot of his opinions.
> 
> The two other S.Ct. justices I've met, Byron "Whizzer" White and John Paul Stevens, were nice enough but did not leave any major impression on me.


He knew it when he saw it....

I seem to recall Thurgood Marshall enjoyed the cocktail hour....


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

Here's a good one from Potter: "Swift justice demands more than just swiftness."


----------



## LotharoftheHillPeople (Apr 30, 2006)

For me, it's a dead heat between these two.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Clarence Thomas


----------



## rkipperman (Mar 19, 2006)

Scalia.


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

LotharoftheHillPeople said:


> For me, it's a dead heat between these two.


The bottom is CJ Earl Warren, but I don't recognize the gentleman on top.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

William O. Douglas

Gurdon


----------



## LotharoftheHillPeople (Apr 30, 2006)

Beresford said:


> The bottom is CJ Earl Warren, but I don't recognize the gentleman on top.


Justice Robert Jackson.


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

Here's a great judge who clearly should have been on the Supreme Court, but never made it.










Judge Learned Hand, 2d Circuit


----------



## LotharoftheHillPeople (Apr 30, 2006)

Agreed.


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

A few years ago the late Prof. Gerry Gunther of Stanford wrote a great biography of Judge Hand. Don't know whether it is still in print.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

William J. Brennan.

Before I understood who he was I would have said William O. Douglas, until he wrote the Court's opinion in Belle Terre v. Boraas. 

As great a hero as Thurgood Marshall was as a litigator and civil rights visionary, his tenure on the Court did not equal what went before.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

I despise them all, but most hated I would have to say is Ginsburg.

M8


----------



## chadn2000 (Aug 4, 2006)

Clarence Thomas and Hugo Black


----------



## LotharoftheHillPeople (Apr 30, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> Before I understood who he was I would have said William O. Douglas, until he wrote the Court's opinion in Belle Terre v. Boraas.


Jack, what rubs the wrong way about the Court's opinion in Belle Terre?


----------



## Vladimir Berkov (Apr 19, 2005)

Justice Sutherland


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

At the time I think it was his support for the generalized anti-student, anti-"hippie" attitudes that gave rise to the challenged ordinance. I haven't read the case in 30-plus years, so I don't know what I would think about it now. I probably still think that Douglas's overall world view or theory of jurisprudence was not clear or coherent enough, which certainly distinguishes him from Brennan.


----------



## LotharoftheHillPeople (Apr 30, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> At the time I think it was his support for the generalized anti-student, anti-"hippie" attitudes that gave rise to the challenged ordinance. I haven't read the case in 30-plus years, so I don't know what I would think about it now. I probably still think that Douglas's overall world view or theory of jurisprudence was not clear or coherent enough, which certainly distinguishes him from Brennan.


I also admire Brennan, who doesn't? It has been argued (and probably rightly so) that Brennan was the most influential Associate Justice in the history of the Court. But, what in Brennan's jurisprudence do you consider more coherent or consistent than Douglas's?


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

Scalia and Thomas - both products of a Jesuit education.

Karl


----------



## rnoldh (Apr 22, 2006)

GWHB's nomination of Clarence Thomas to the "Thurgood Marshall" seat was one of the great political moves of the 20th century!

Thomas is despised by Jesse Jackson - Al Sharpton type Blacks and greatly admired by staunch conservatives. As I said, a great political move by GWHB.

I always thought Felix Frankfurter was a great Supreme Court Justice, but that was a long time ago and should be judged in the context of those times.

I think John Roberts definitely has the potential to be a superb and influential SC Justice for many years to come.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

rnoldh,

Thomas was a great choice but GHWB also made the horrid choice of Souter.

Roberts and Alito were both good choices. 

Karl


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Wayfarer,

Did you realize that there is a P-Bomb majority on the Supreme Court. Rome must be pleased!

Karl


----------



## rnoldh (Apr 22, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> rnoldh,
> 
> Thomas was a great choice but GHWB also made the horrid choice of Souter.
> 
> ...


I agree.

Souter was/is a cipher. If I remember correctly, he had only been a Federal Judge briefly before being nominated. And he didn't have much of a record to be judged on.

To this day, I don't know why GWHB nominated him.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

My current favorite is Scalia. I rarely agree with his opinions, but often they're dissenting, contorted, conflicting, emotionally bitter and fun to read. In one case he'll write a short novel about the sanctity of states rights and the rights of a majority to make their own laws. And in the very next case, if he's biased personally against a given issue (abortion, homosexuality, medical marijuana etc), he'll write an equally long novel explaining why the federal government has a constitutional right to prohibit it -- even though sometimes large majorities of people in a state want something legalized or kept legal. It's fairly easy to guess which Scalia will turn up from case to case, but that doesn't take much of the fun out of reading his opinions IMO.


----------



## memphislawyer (Mar 2, 2007)

Beresford said:


> Here's a great judge who clearly should have been on the Supreme Court, but never made it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I remember Learned Hand from law school. Never saw his picture. I had the occasion to hear Ruth Bader Ginsberg and speak with her after her speech. Very, very unassuming, very polite, very much of a montone speaker. Sharp as a tack however.

William Douglas would be up there with the best. Scalia, I do respect his intellect, and he can turn the charm on when I have heard him speak, but something about his personna makes me think there is more that is not being said or expressed, maybe some sort of dark side. Perhaps I am just totally dead wrong.

Of the current court, the Chief Justice could turn out to be a surprisingly good pick, to go down as one of the best. Seems to be measured, thoughtful, and willing to perhaps tackle some touchy topics. Time will see.


----------



## chadn2000 (Aug 4, 2006)

*Clarence Thomas*

any law students or former ones here? why in the world are there never any thomas opinions in the con law books?

is it because he dissents in most of the cases the books show? is it because he does not write a lot of opinions?

i always love his opinions, they are so concise and crystal clear while the other justices are very long-winded and convoluted, and, in my opinion, wrong.

i'd love to see some more of him in the casebooks.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Prior to the death of William Rehnquist, most of Thomas' opinions could be summed up in three words: "What Rehnquist said." Not a lot of reason to include those in law books.

Thomas is (or at least was) a complete lapdog, but has started to come into his own since Rehnquist died.


----------



## chadn2000 (Aug 4, 2006)

A lot of people say that about Thomas and Scalia, or Thomas and Rehnquist....but a study was conducted a while back (I'll look for it) that shows which Justices vote most frequently together, and the top pairing, if I recall correctly, was Ginsberg and Souter....or some other liberal combo. I don't even think Thomas/Scalia or Thomas/Rehnquist was second in the study. 

I've always found Thomas's opinions to be pretty original....which I guess makes sense because he's an originalist :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

I'd be the last person to claim Thomas is the only lapdog on the court. He's the Republican version of Ginsberg.


----------



## NoVaguy (Oct 15, 2004)

Tough call, but in the modern era it is probably Brennan for me, due to his underlying strong egalitarian impulses.

But I deeply respect many of Black's opinions. Although not all - Koremastu is a disgrace, even based on the facts as the court incorrectly understood them. I can probably find opinions I like from many of the recent Justices. Scalia's defense of habeas corpus. Jackson in the Steel seizure case. Kennedy in Romer v. Evans. 

And I can sympathize with Thomas's views, and understand it, even though I choose not to agree with it.

Least favorite? Probably Warren Burger. or the 4 Horsemen, which virtually functioned as a unit.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

Scalia


----------



## Tyto (Sep 22, 2004)

cenelson43 said:


> any law students or former ones here? why in the world are there never any thomas opinions in the con law books?
> 
> is it because he dissents in most of the cases the books show? is it because he does not write a lot of opinions?
> 
> ...


He gets a pretty good amount of time in Con Law textbooks (or, at least, the two I've seen/used). I'm not sure he could be summmarized as "what Rehnquist said"; closer would be, "I'd like to roll back the last 50-150 years of jurisprudence on this issue (depending on whether it's Commerce Clause or something else), but I realize that's not going to happen."

As a student, I like Scalia's opinions--they are usually well thought-out, structured, and witty--but he's certainly not above finding a way to reach the decision he really wants when it doesn't necessarily comport with his philosophy (who isn't?). His article on deciding constitutional law vs. common law is fascinating.

For a favorite, I tend towards Cardozo, though more for his circuit decisions than his Supreme Court decisions. Also, I agree that Roberts has some potential to be a "great" justice.

Least favorite is any justice in Dred Scott, especially Taney. He was actually pretty good prior to that, but Lord . . . history classes always taught that it was a poor decision, but until you really read it (well, them), you don't know the depth of its failure.


----------



## chadn2000 (Aug 4, 2006)

Tyto said:


> As a student, I like Scalia's opinions--they are usually well thought-out, structured, and witty--but he's certainly not above finding a way to reach the decision he really wants when it doesn't necessarily comport with his philosophy (who isn't?). His article on deciding constitutional law vs. common law is fascinating.


Where is this article? I'd like to give it a read.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

Clarence Thomas


----------



## Tyto (Sep 22, 2004)

cenelson43 said:


> Where is this article? I'd like to give it a read.


I'll let you know: I'll have to look it up this evening.


----------



## summej2 (Dec 19, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> As great a hero as Thurgood Marshall was as a litigator and civil rights visionary, his tenure on the Court did not equal what went before.


Indeed. He lived next door while he was on the court.


----------



## Tyto (Sep 22, 2004)

*Scalia Article for cenelson43*



cenelson43 said:


> Where is this article? I'd like to give it a read.


Found it--it's actually a chapter in one of his books:

Scalia, Antonin. 1997. Common-Law Courts in a Civil-Law System: The Role of United States Federal Courts in Interpreting the Constitution and Laws, in _A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law_. Princeton Univ. Press.

Edit: Also, is a PDF transcription of a lecture by Scalia that appears to be an early version of the chapter.


----------



## Max Inseam (Oct 9, 2006)

John Rutledge, as the only Supreme Court justice to be removed from the Court for reasons of mental incompetence, is tempting, but my sympathetic favorite would have to be his successor, Thomas Johnson, who both authored the Court's first written opinion and later named the City of Washington.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

Of the sitting justices, I find that those on the right are not far enough to the right, and those on the left are not far enough to the left, so my favorite current justice must be based on sartorial criteria alone, which, after all, is the only relevant measure.

The Bestest Justice on the Court is John Paul Stevens, because he wears BOW TIES! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## NewYorkBuck (May 6, 2004)

Scalia


----------

