[Kevin Curry]

Wonder what Scalia and Thomas were thinking when they dissented, though.

Simple. States' rights to regulate jury awards under the Tenth Amendment. This doesn't mean Scalia and Thomas favor the blood-drunk plaintiff's bar, only that they believe the Constitution leaves such matters to the states to decide.

[GnL]

Interestingly, it was Ginsburg's dissent that really talked about states' rights: "In Gore, I stated why I resisted the Court's foray into punitive damages 'territory traditionally within the States' domain.' I adhere to those views, and note again that, unlike federal habeas corpus review of state court convictions...the Court 'work[s] at this business [of checking state courts] alone,' unaided by the participation of federal district courts and courts of appeals....I remain of the view that this Court has no warrant to reform state law governing awards of punitive damages."