Who is/was the worst Supreme Court Justice ever? nt

[kid a]

[indepat]

1. Scalia IMHO

[BlueIris]

25. Yup. Didn't have to think twice. n/t

[auburngrad82]

29. I agree nt

[nashuaadvocate]

2. Clarence Thomas.

He matches strident partisanship with no overriding judicial philosophy and limited intellectual capability.

Either him, or the guy who decided Dred Scott--I think Samuel Chase was his name, but I may be mistaken.

S.

[BrotherBuzz]

3. Eisenhower might have suggested Earl Warren...

Me thinks Earl Warren turned out pretty good. :)

[oneold1-4u]

9. Warren took the choice

A lifetime paying against only a possibility of president!

[DaveinMD]

4. whoever wrote

Plessy v Ferguson.

[Greyhound]

8. Here ya go. The guilty parties.

And where they came from.
Stephen J. Field (appointed by A. Lincoln, Republican)
Horace Gray (Chester Arthur, R)
Melville W. Fuller (Grover Cleveland, D)
David J. Brewer (Benjamin Harrison, R)
Henry B. Brown (Benjamin Harrison, R)
George Shiras, Jr. (Benjamin Harrison, R)
Edward D. White (Grover Cleveland, D)
Rufus W. Peckham (Grover Cleveland, D)

The lone dissenter, John M. Harland (Rutherford Hayes, R), even mentioned Dred Scott in his opinion.

:banghead:

[RoyGBiv]

17. Henry Brown ...

Justice Henry Brown wrote the opinion of the court.

[barb162]

5. Scalia or Thomas

[the_spectator]

6. Chief Justice Taney

The author of the Dred Scott decision before the civil war. (This made it so that even if slaves made it to free states, they would never be free in law, and their masters could seize them back at any time.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_B._Taney
Not to "bash", but I noticed in the link that Taney was the FIRST Catholic on the Supreme Court (whereas now we have Scalia, I think Rhenquist, Roberts is certainly Catholic, is Thomas too? I don't know.)

[wuushew]

7. That was a correct decision "at the time"

the injustice of the ruling was corrected by amending the Constitution. To criticize Taney is to not recognize that Constitution from its inception was a racist and pro-slavery document.

[zinndependence]

11. I don't completely agree.

The Court did not have to decide the case the way they did. His reasoning was not universal...not everyone believed that Blacks had no rights that deserved respect under the law. That decision as well as the Plessy decision had huge negative ramifications for civil rights. Both Courts in essence gave their legal stamp of approval to second-class citizenship for Blacks throughout the nation.

I think it is too early to say Scalia and Thomas are the worst Justices ever. (I am definitely not a fan of either....I guess I need to know how you define "worst.") Do you mean worst legal mind or are you referring to the justices long-term negative impact?

We also need to look at the cumulative impact of a justice's opinions.

Or, is one horrible opinion enough to earn the title "worst justice ever?" I view Plessy and Bowers as the two most "wrongly" decided cases in the history of the S.C. The long-term negative impact both decisions had is unimaginable.

[RoyGBiv]

13. I do not agree ...

The legal reasoning is specious at best.

Taney's ruling had far reaching consequences that fundamentally altered the nature of power in the nation to something not even similar to what the authors intended. It was a so-called activist decision of the worst sort. (Shrub's handlers feed words into his mouth about Dred Scott for a reason.)

[RoyGBiv]

12. Agreed ...

I was just going to post this.

Scott v. Sandford was even more far-reaching that your summary suggests. It effectively prevented any state from excluding slavery within its borders, which is bad enough, but the logic upon which this is based is even worse. In one opinion, Taney restructured the basis of US citizenship and the relationship of federal to state power. So much for "state's rights."

Taney rested his opinion on his view that no person whose ancestors had been brought to the United States as slaves could be a citizen of the United States; therefore, these persons had no claim to the rights protected by the Constitution. Further, no state had any authority to grant state citizenship (which at the time was generally the standard for US citizenship) to these people.

[zinndependence]

14. I think Brennan was Catholic...Brennan, Marshall and

Douglas are my favorites.

[NoPasaran]

15. Another vote for Taney

[PassingFair]

19. Roberts is....... n/t

[Swamp Rat]

10. Scalia

[pop goes the weasel]

16. good question

So many judges, so many bad decisions. Maybe every justice between 1875 and 1900 could be considered among the worst--that was the period when the SCUSA was busy finding rights for corporations while taking them away from blacks.

[genieroze]

18. Scalia

[SmileyBoy]

20. That KKK member in the 20's, whatshisname.

I learned a little about him in Politcal Science class.

[against all enemies]

21. Thomas, stupid and an insult to Thurgood Marshall.

[lumberjack_jeff]

22. Roger Brooke Taney

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/21.htm

followed closely by Thomas.

[Bleacher Creature]

23. Clarence Thomas - and not just because I diagree with him.

Simply put, he's an intellectual lightweight whose only claim to fame is being put in charge of the EEOC with the sole purpose of dismantling it from within. I diagree with Antonin Scalia with every ounce of my body, but from what I've heard - he's a brilliant thinker. Wrong, but very bright.

Thomas is a moron. And as another person posted earlier, a disgusting insult to the memory of Thurgood Marshall.

[kid a]

26. I concur - Thomas

[Lori Price CLG]

24. Damn, it's like a *20-way* tie! n/t

[rasputin1952]

27. Having not studied the USSC to any great degree...

from a contemporary POV, it has to be Clarence Thomas. Thomas is a remarkably stupid man for such an appointment. He was a Federal Judge for only one year when tapped for the SC, and during the hearings on him, he made some remarkably stupid remarks for someone who would eventually sit on the highest court in the land.

I am still flabbergasted when I think back to those hearings, and recall that when asked about the 'charges' against him, that he simply refused to listen to them, and called the whole situation a 'lynching'. Who could possibly vote for an individual that would not listen to "charges" in a hearing. Is that not the entire idea behind being a judge...to make a decision based on what is presented?

Since Thomas has been on the SC, he has not made one intelligent statement, he is actually and incredible embarrassment. His main claim to fame, marrying Limbaugh to his now estranged wife. His sole claim to the seat was that he is black and a conservative, and replacing an absolutely brilliant Thurgood Marshall it was thought a black individual was 'required'. I forget his name, but a black jurist sent Thomas an open letter after he was confirmed, and it was blistering. I sure wish that individual was nominated, his arguments were well worded and he seemed to have the jurisprudence to have made a fine SC justice.

Taney is at the top of the list, but it is difficult to compare the 1850's and today. It took Amendments to the Constitution to ensure that Dred Scott decisions would never be made again. As flawed as it was, the law was the law. It could have been changed with the stroke of a pen, but there were many powers, mostly economic, that ensured that horrors like Dred Scott would endure until repealed by Constitutional Amendment.

[MN ChimpH8R]

28. Taney , Brown, Thomas, Scalia

at the top of the list. Some other gems include McReynolds, Butler and the others who tried to crush the New Deal.