[GnL]

Here is the text of Thomas dissent: "I would affirm the judgment below because 'I continue to believe that the Constitution does not constrain the size of punitive damage awards.'"

Here is Scalia's: "the Due Process clause provides no substantive protections against 'excessive' or 'unreasonable' awards of punitive damages."

[Dane]

Here is the text of Thomas dissent: "I would affirm the judgment below because 'I continue to believe that the Constitution does not constrain the size of punitive damage awards.'"

Here is Scalia's: "the Due Process clause provides no substantive protections against 'excessive' or 'unreasonable' awards of punitive damages."

I have read that after every case(Gore vs. Bush being the exception) heard before SCOTUS all nine justices have lunch and basically discuss the case and vote there. A Justice is then decided to write the majority opinion and a Justice is decided to write the dissenting opinion.

Scalia and Thomas's dissent can placate the absolutist word "Constitutionalist" Libertarians, while Ginsburg dissent placates the activist left.

And all in all, SCOTUS strikes down the economic damage done to this country by trial lawyers.

[Huck]

Bookmark this decision. It is a perfect way to disprove standard liberal assumptions about conservative justices (i.e., that they are activists advancing a "conservative" or GOP agenda.) Clearly, what you have here are 2 justices (Scalia and Thomas) who favor a certain interprative standard, and 7 others--including Ginsberg--who either never follow a standard, or, like GInsberg in this case, only do so when it is convenient.