Originally Posted by loquitur

Will, consider this hypothetical: corporation does something terrible to someone, gets sued, and the jury socks the corporation with a huge award of punitive damages. The corp appeals, the appellate court affirms. It petitions to the Supreme Court for review, arguing that the punitive damages award is excessive and unconstitutional. Sup Ct takes the case. Question: how did Clarence Thomas vote on the case - for the corp or for the individual?

Or this one: woman grows marijuana in a flower pot in her house for her own medicinal use. The feds object, raising the federal Controlled Substances Act. She resists and argues the feds have no business making it illegal for her to grow stuff in her own home for her own use. Supreme Court takes the case. Question: how does Clarence Thomas vote - for the pothead or for law enforcement?

There are plenty of cases like this. You might want to look at some of Scalia's opinions about wartime powers of the president - he takes a fairly dim view of many of the Bush Administration's arguments, though not all.

The point is that judges are supposed to rule on what the law is, not what they want it to be. They are NOT politicians in robes. That doesn't mean someone's view of life isn't going to affect how s/he goes about the task of judging, but this idea that your political views dictate the outcome of cases is just plain wrong. Scalia, for example, has been very clear that much as he may detest abortion he doesn't think the constitution outlaws it. He thinks the constitution is silent about the issue, which means it's a public policy question to be decided by elected officials rather than judges. And some Catholics have criticized him for it (they think a fetus is a "person" protected by the 14th Amendment), and he's told them to take a hike.