Worst SCOTUS justice

[Sir Mohamed]

I'm saying Thomas. He's worse than Kavanaugh, who has at least voted the right way in a limited number of cases. Thomas is wrong on practically everything.

[Del Tachi]

Best:  Thomas and Breyer (tied)
Worst:  Sotomayor

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Worst → Clarence Thomas

[Left Wing]

Thomas is the worst.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Voted for Alito. Thomas is a total hack but he occasionally gets it right on cases that don't have a strict ideological split (this happened more when his buddy Scalia was still around since Scalia was actually pretty good on some free speech and civil liberties issues.) Alito is not just a complete hack he's also "all authoritarian all the time."

[lfromnj]

Voted for Alito. Thomas is a total hack but he occasionally gets it right on cases that don't have a strict ideological split (this happened more when his buddy Scalia was still around since Scalia was actually pretty good on some free speech and civil liberties issues.) Alito is not just a complete hack he's also "all authoritarian all the time."

Opposite choice for me, Sotomayor.
Ginsburg isnt a pure political hack either.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

The serial rapist (Brett Kavanaugh)

[Anna Komnene]

Alito for his puritanical views that make him better suited to conduct the Salem Witch Trials than sit on the Supreme Court.

[Storr]

Thomas and it isn't close.

[😥]

Clarence Thomas

[Ferguson97]

Close tie between Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh because they are both rapists, but Thomas edges out for being further right.

[S019]

Thomas or Alito, but I'll go with Thomas

[OSR stands with Israel]

Voted for Alito. Thomas is a total hack but he occasionally gets it right on cases that don't have a strict ideological split (this happened more when his buddy Scalia was still around since Scalia was actually pretty good on some free speech and civil liberties issues.) Alito is not just a complete hack he's also "all authoritarian all the time."

Opposite choice for me, Sotomayor.
Ginsburg isnt a pure political hack either.

[SevenEleven]

The first to come to mind was Alito and after thinking a little more about it, I'm sticking with him. I think he has the fewest redeemable qualities. Thomas and Kavanaugh have concerns, on and off bench, but Alito is the worst when it comes to what affects average American lives.

[Clarence Boddicker]

Thomas is the most nakedly partisan.

[I’m not Stu]

The first to come to mind was Alito and after thinking a little more about it, I'm sticking with him. I think he has the fewest redeemable qualities. Thomas and Kavanaugh have concerns, on and off bench, but Alito is the worst when it comes to what affects average American lives.

What redeeming qualities does Thomas even have? Is it that Thomas and Gorsuch occasionally strike down racial gerrymanders?

[President Johnson]

Thomas, he's just awful. Actually sad Poppy Bush didn't do better since he wasn't a bad president overall; and Thurgood Marshall deserved a better replacement. Hope Thomas steps down in the next presidential term so that Joe Biden can appoint his successor.

[Dereich]

The first to come to mind was Alito and after thinking a little more about it, I'm sticking with him. I think he has the fewest redeemable qualities. Thomas and Kavanaugh have concerns, on and off bench, but Alito is the worst when it comes to what affects average American lives.

What redeeming qualities does Thomas even have? Is it that Thomas and Gorsuch occasionally strike down racial gerrymanders?

Thomas is the only member of the court who could be reasonably called "anti-elitist." Exclusively among the court, Justice Thomas will look for and routinely hire clerks outside of the Ivy League. He's on record saying that he doesn't believe that the top performers at high-tier state schools and "lesser" T-14 schools are any worse than the upper tier at Harvard and Yale, which provide the vast majority of SCOTUS clerks for everyone else. Personally he's very open. He came and taught one of my classes in law school for a week and let us talk/ask about whatever we wanted. At the end, he provided his information in case we ever wanted to come by his house in the "Sovereign State of Georgia."

His judicial philosophy is the most unique on the court. Thomas does not believe that stare decisis is a principle to be given much (if any) weight. If he believes a line of cases has been wrongly decided, his opinion is that they should all go even if it means reversing years of precedent. Look at the topic in Constitution and Law on whether Roe v. Wade is good legal reasoning; the vast majority of voters agreed that it is not, but many posters believed that it was too precedential or necessary to change. That's exactly the sort of thought that Thomas regularly crusades against. If the law shouldn't have been used to interpret something X way, reverse it. It doesn't matter how old it was. He's well-known for wanting to reverse the whole Substantive Due Process (which really really is an abomination that nobody understands) line of cases all the way back to Slaughterhouse in 1873 and restore any rights lost under that where they were supposed to be , the Privileges and Immunities clause. I disagree with his reasoning a lot, but I think its helpful to have at least one justice willing to prod the others to get rid of bad caselaw despite stare decisis. Certainly better than Alito, who is an uncreative executive branch hack at best.

As for the worst justice, its easily Sotomayor. She has absolutely nothing to recommend her. Her writing quality is poor, she's showed a willingness to be influenced by disapproving press on the left, and she is unquestionably the biggest partisan hack on the court. Its such a shame, because Obama's other appointee Kagan is one of the best members of the court.

[SevenEleven]

The first to come to mind was Alito and after thinking a little more about it, I'm sticking with him. I think he has the fewest redeemable qualities. Thomas and Kavanaugh have concerns, on and off bench, but Alito is the worst when it comes to what affects average American lives.

What redeeming qualities does Thomas even have? Is it that Thomas and Gorsuch occasionally strike down racial gerrymanders?

Yeah, probably. You won't find many, that's for sure.

[lfromnj]

The first to come to mind was Alito and after thinking a little more about it, I'm sticking with him. I think he has the fewest redeemable qualities. Thomas and Kavanaugh have concerns, on and off bench, but Alito is the worst when it comes to what affects average American lives.

What redeeming qualities does Thomas even have? Is it that Thomas and Gorsuch occasionally strike down racial gerrymanders?

It's that Thomas actually has an ideology that isnt being a partisan hack unlike Alito or Sotomayor.

[Xing]

Thomas is worse than Alito as a person, but yeah, I agree with others that Alito is the most hackish and thus the worst as a justice.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

In terms of rulings? Thomas is the worst.

In terms of as a human being? Kavanaugh.

[brucejoel99]

"Worst" depends on some metric: logical coherence? Reasoning? Preferred policy outcomes? Judicial philosophy?

With that in mind, & even though I personally despise Thomas for non-judicial reasons (read: Anita Hill), I'd push back on those dismissing him because you don't like his outcomes. Yeah, I disagree with him & his opinions a lot, but there's a strong argument that he's actually been the most intellectually-honest & consistent justice on the Court when it comes to originalism. I also greatly admire how he takes law clerks from places other than Harvard or Yale, in addition to his willingness to visit lower-ranked law schools (he literally taught a course at UF - which is where I'm currently attending undergrad - this past semester). He's done a lot to help SCOTUS be involved with more than just 2 law schools.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that I actually sort-of appreciate him for who he is as a justice. He's extremely conservative & extremely consistent: he doesn't really forego his own view of the law in order to achieve a result in any particular case. My main problem with him, though, is that his view of the law bears little relation to reality. His theories have been squarely rejected &/or passed over by prior Courts, but he continues to write dissents or concurrences without regard to the established law. It's like SCOTUS has its own contrarian academic: he produces (sometimes) brilliant writing, even if it's usually completely out of touch with reality. I also dislike his frankly cavalier attitude towards stare decisis, but hell, I'll be damned if I don't find his level of conviction & consistency to his (idiosyncratic, bizarre, very wrong) particular view of law to honestly be noble. (Also, it's f**king hilarious whenever he cites his own previous dissents to support his positions.)

As for the worst on the current Court, probably Alito. Not only do I not like his legal philosophy, but - as others have pointed out - he just seems to be a hardcore right-winger with no real philosophy.

[Dereich]

"Worst" depends on some metric: logical coherence? Reasoning? Preferred policy outcomes? Judicial philosophy?

With that in mind, & even though I personally despise Thomas for non-judicial reasons (read: Anita Hill), I'd push back on those dismissing him because you don't like his outcomes. Yeah, I disagree with him & his opinions a lot, but there's a strong argument that he's actually been the most intellectually-honest & consistent justice on the Court when it comes to originalism. I also greatly admire how he takes law clerks from places other than Harvard or Yale, in addition to his willingness to visit lower-ranked law schools (he literally taught a course at UF - which is where I'm currently attending undergrad - this past semester). He's done a lot to help SCOTUS be involved with more than just 2 law schools.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that I actually sort-of appreciate him for who he is as a justice. He's extremely conservative & extremely consistent: he doesn't really forego his own view of the law in order to achieve a result in any particular case. My main problem with him, though, is that his view of the law bears little relation to reality. His theories have been squarely rejected &/or passed over by prior Courts, but he continues to write dissents or concurrences without regard to the established law. It's like SCOTUS has its own contrarian academic: he produces (sometimes) brilliant writing, even if it's usually completely out of touch with reality. I also dislike his frankly cavalier attitude towards stare decisis, but hell, I'll be damned if I don't find his level of conviction & consistency to his (idiosyncratic, bizarre, very wrong) particular view of law to honestly be noble. (Also, it's f**king hilarious whenever he cites his own previous dissents to support his positions.)

As for the worst on the current Court, probably Alito. Not only do I not like his legal philosophy, but - as others have pointed out - he just seems to be a hardcore right-winger with no real philosophy.

My class that Justice Thomas taught for a week was also at UF, though at the law school and not the main campus. The class was "Property Rights and the U.S. Constitution." I have a full legal pad of notes from that week; he would just talk and talk and talk and we all hung on his every word.

[AtorBoltox]

Thomas is certainly an extremist, but other as have said he is consistent in his misguided ideology. Alito is the only SCOTUS judge I would describe as Republican - his ruling lines up with whatever the preferred position of political conservatives is 100% of the time. Occasionally, Thomas and Scalia when he was alive align with the liberal wing on matters concerning defendants rights (confrontation clause, 4th amendment). Never Alito.