Wrong again; you haven't disproved anything I've said about Scalia, Thomas or any of the others and these ratings only prove what I've been saying all along. In fact I have less respect now for Scalia and Thomas after seeing this.
Whatever you've said about any of them is meaningless, because you don't have any idea what the hell is going on anyway. I doubt you even knew who all the justices are. Based on your previous posts, I thought you approved of Scalia and Thomas. Now your saying I haven't disproved that? You're a complete airhead.
What is it that you've said about any of them other than a bunch of vague generalizations which you can't illustrate with any specific examples, i.e., they legislate instead of interpret the law, they don't enforce the constitution or whatever? There's no burden of proof on me to "disprove" those inane statements. You have no way of backing them up in the first place. For someone to credibly make statements like those they would have to know some specific examples and also be conversant in constitutional theory. I've given specific examples of votes which would have gone the other way. You have yet to give an intelligent response to that. I could say "all libertarians are retarts" and then say you haven't "disproved" it.
To me what matters is, based on what I know about some of the key decisions over the years, Thomas, Scalia, Rehnquist, O'Connor and Kennedy have generally prevented liberal overeaching and legislating from the bench, often by a single vote. Your opinion of whether they do that or not means nothing as you know nothing.