Which Supreme Couty justice do you think is the most biased?

[Deja Q]

All of them who voted for Shrub* in 2000 were definitely masturbating the republican party and fascism. All clear evidence had shown Gore should have been selected.

Then comes this: http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/4260311.html

Anton Scalia says "This is a sad day for the freedom of speech,"
(snippie)
Scalia added that "an attack upon the funding of speech is an attack upon speech itself."
(snippie)
The conservative bloc of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Scalia and Justices Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas dissented.


Of course, bushboy Coleman had to open his filthy yap as well: But the ruling did not alter the views of (snippie) Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn. "The right of individuals and organizations to contribute and support candidates and causes of their choice is being seriously undermined with this court decision today," Coleman said.


Scalia is lying in his comments. He knows the pukes get the most in soft money PROOF... (the article leaves open another debate, which I will not mention at this time...)

Coleman is being his usual sleazy, gonna-go-to-visit-Satan, amoral jerky self. Not just because of caps but because people who give the money will demand favors in return. This is called "corruption", and only corrupt people cannot see it as such (perfect examples of the corrupt are the repukes listed in this post and lots of others too.)

On a brighter note: But Justices John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the majority that "our cases have made clear that the prevention of corruption or its appearance constitutes a sufficiently important interest to justify political contribution limits."

I can easily respect both of them, even if either of them had selected the smirking shrub*.

What say you?

(note: I would have a better word to use in place of "bushboy", and I think you might be able to guess as it is loosely related to "boy", but it might be seen as profanity even though the definition of the word is NOT profane. Oh well.)

[joeybee12]

1. Scalia is the most biased, Rehnquist a close second

Thmoas is third, although I can't really call him biased because he's too friggin' stupid to think for himself! He takes his cues from the other two.

Oh, and dumb republicans (like Coleman)--I forget his name--a Congressman from Indiana compared this decision to the Dred Scott decision. How despicable!

[dwckabal]

2. Scalia, no doubt. N/T

[Bush loves Jiang]

3. Was Stalin more evil than Khrushchev or Brezhnev?

Of course Scalia's the worst.

[leetrisck]

4. I think Thomas is actually worse than Scalia

and Rehnquist but all 3 are awful. There are actually right wingers who think Thomas should be the next Chief Justice. Wouldn't that just be lovely - wonder if he would speak then and sew gold bars on his sleeve. Very egostical bunch

[Deja Q]

6. See post #1 then read this frightning eye-opener

If that's true about Thomas taking cue, then he's not fit to be chief justice.

Amusingly, the repuke justices are just happening to be playing the race card - which is the very thing repukes blame us of doing all the time. Sickening and hypocritical, isn't it?

[mndemocrat_29]

5. Scalia's the most biased

Though Thomas just does whatever he says, and Rehnquist's just as bad. Really all three of them.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

7. Scalia, Then Thomas, Then Rehnquist

Although a mouse could starve on the difference. They're all terrible. Scalia is the most dangerous on a broad scale, IMO, because he's the most intelligent of the lot, but he's also the most arrogant and he has alienated many of the others on the Court.

DTH

[joeybee12]

8. "A mouse could starve on the difference!" I love that anology!

Is it your's??????????????

[DoveTurnedHawk]

11. I Read It Somewhere

But I love it too. :-)

DTH

[Iverson]

9. agreed

It's like asking which excrement smells the foulest.

[Mattforclark]

10. Thomas

wants to reverse Gibbons v. Ogden from 1824...............................................

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.........................

As Senator Schumer would say, that is not 'mainstream.'

As to bias, they are all biased. It is impossible to not be biased. You're just going to say that the person who disagrees with you the most is the 'most biased.'

[joeybee12]

12. I disagree--I think we're interpreting "biased" here as "ideological"

And to say someone is the most ideological is different. They all have biases, but these three are unable to put those aside at all.

[Mattforclark]

13. In other words

Thomas, Rhenquist, and Scalia disagree with you most? When other people like O'Conner are 'putting their biases aside', they are agreeing with you.