Favorite. Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She seems like the most intelligent of the current 9.
Least favorite. Clarence Thomas. If he was white and a few years younger, he’d never see the Supreme Court without visiting.
Least: Scalia - by far the most intellectually dishonest of them all
Most: Stevens
Favorite: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Least favorite: Antonin Scalia
Least favorite is Scalia for sure. In interviews he comes across to me as way too impressed with himself.
Sotomayor is still new but I got a pretty favorable impression of her when she was interviewed during the confirmation process.
Favorites: Souter (yes, I know he retired), Breyer, Scalia
I have a least favorite, although I am reluctant to specify, since I think he is often not taken seriously enough. I find I disagree with Justice Thomas most often. Nevertheless, his dissent in Kelo v. City of New London seems to express what most people I’ve talked to about the matter think the Court should have held in that case (in keeping with what I said above, I thought Kelo was correctly decided, and so, naturally, I disagree with the dissent).
I also hasten to add that I have at times agreed with the jurisprudence of all the Court’s members. Indeed, I (and Justice Stevens!) have even found myself to the right of Justice Scalia on the matter of Fourth Amendment protections from thermal imaging scans of one’s home, which I would permit even if such scans might reveal details as intimate as the hour of the lady of the house’s nightly sauna.
Favorite: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Least Favorite Antonin Scalia
Favorite: Ginsberg.
Least Favorite: I had a hard time deciding between Scalia and Thomas. I picked Thomas . . . but not out of any fondness or respect for Scalia.
I would have picked Scalia, but there is some interesting friendship between Scalia and Ginsburg.
My opinion probably isn’t as informed as it should be. Current law student, so I’ve picked up some generalized notions from reading SCOTUS opinions here and there, but never really taken the time to really pay close attention to which Justice stands on every issue. That said…
Favorite: Hard to say, if only because I constantly get Breyer, Stevens and Souter confused as they all tend to seem to be the “liberal old white guy” in mind (even though I know that’s a gross oversimplification), and it’s hard for me to remember which one I’ve liked and which ones I haven’t. Ginsburg, perhaps. One decision that sticks in my mind was one on civil procedure in which Ginsburg dissented in a 7-2 decision, and her dissent made much more sense - interesting since she had been a civil procedure teacher.
Least Favorite: Scalia or Thomas. Scalia is a smart guy, but too often he seems to use those smarts for bad ends. He seems to stick with his originalism only when it suits his position. Rumor_Watkin’s label of “intellectually dishonest” is probably a good one. As for Thomas, the stereotype is that he’s not smart enough for the Court, and a lot of his opinions do give that impression. That said, there are also times when he seems to be the only one who will be willing to take the layman’s approach and dissent from over-nuanced Court opinons (such as repeatedly dissenting, on grounds of federalism, from the Court’s current standing on the issue of application of the Federal Arbitration Act to state laws and courts). I guess I’d pick Scalia, with the scales tipped by his “gay agenda” rant in Lawrence v. Texas.
Favorite, Stevens.
Least fave, really tough to pick between Scalia and Thomas. I chose Scalia, mainly because he maintains a higher profile.
I gave the fave vote to Sotomayor for conducting herself with such dignity throughout the Republikkkan mudslinging. I like Ginsberg too, I hope she has a longer life than it seems she will.
Least fave- Thomas. I believed the allegations that arose during his confirmation and he seems (like Scalia and Alito) to be little more than a partisan hack.
Fave: Nino
Least: Ginsburg
Favorite: Breyer. I agree with virtually every decision of his which I’ve read. A very thoughtful, careful, judicious man. I’ve met him and he was friendly and engaging in person. (He’s also in my international law fraternity, but that’s just gravy).
Least favorite: Thomas. Wouldn’t be there at all if he weren’t a black conservative close at hand when Marshall retired and GHWB got to appoint his replacement. I believed Anita Hill, then and now, and he’s done nothing as an associate justice for which history will otherwise remember him.
Roberts should get some serious consideration for the least favorite. He’s harder to hate, but I really think he’s never seen an exercise of government power he disapproves of. Thomas, at least, had the sense to dissent in Campbell v. State Farm. I’m not a real fan of any of the current crop. On the bright side, it should improve over the next seven years.
Least favorite: Roberts over Thomas.
Favorite, in a way: Scalia. Although I frequently disagree with his decisions, I find him pretty intelligent and his arguments well thought out and cogent (but often wrong, IMO).