[PoisedWoman]

Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia dissented.

What a peculiar alliance. I wonder why Thomas and Scalia dissented..

[GnL]

They probably dissented because the Constitution says nothing about limiting punitive damage awards.

[Capt. Jake]

I imagine they dissented because there is no textual basis in the constitution for limiting punitive damages awards in state courts. The state legislatures or courts should be free to make such determinations and not have them imposed by unelected, life-tenured federal judges. While I may favor the result, the process by which the result was arrived at may be as illegitmate as Roe- v. Wade. Scalia and Thomas are ususally right.

[ER_in_OC,CA]

From the article, it seems clear that Thomas and Scalia find it inappropriate for the federal judiciary to determine that a state court damage finding invalidates "due process" simply because of the size of the judgement.

Seems like they're both very consistent. Given their brilliance, I'd bet they could convince me of the rightness of their position, though as a stockholder in Altria Corp, this is welcome news for me!

I'm sure Scalia would tell you that court judgements are often insane, and many lawsuits are without merit. But he would likely say that the proper way to address this is for more judges to apply strict legal standards. He's certainly right "in theory." But I don't have the patience for this theory to play out just now...

[CA Conservative]

Without more information, I think Scalia and Thomas were probably concerned with the state's rights issue. I would disagree with that argument in this case, in that the plaintiff invoked the federal issue by using the defendants practices in other states to attempt to prove their case, and by basing their claim for damages upon the defendant's assets in other states. But in general, I am in favor of deferance to the state courts where there is no federal issue (in this case, interstate commerce).

[mjustice]

What a peculiar alliance. I wonder why Thomas and Scalia dissented..

There is nothing in the Constitutional about limiting punitive damages, so there really is not much for the SCOTUS to rule on. Ten times actual damages sounds fair, but has no basis in established law.

MJ

[js1138]

What a peculiar alliance. I wonder why Thomas and Scalia dissented..

Perhaps because there's nothing in the constitution that mentions this new "right".

[RobRoy]

Not the supreme courts business?

[republicofdavis]

I think the more interesting question is why Rehnquist didn't

[NCLaw441]

I think Thomas et al dissented based upon states' rights arguments. The matter is not one properly before the US Supreme Court. States can make their own laws on these matters.

[Congressman Billybob]

Folks,

Because I read ALL of the Supreme Court decisions (in order to write about them monthly) I can tell you why Justices Scalia and Thomas dissented in this case. There is no real authority in Article III of the Constitution (the courts) to tell STATE courts what they can and cannot do concerning punitive damages.

Why Justice Ginsburg did this is beyond me, until I read the Opinion and Dissent. Bottom line, there are many absurd situations in this society which cry out for a solution. However, it is a fallacy to assume that because there is something wrong, THEREFORE, the Supreme Court MUST have jurisdiction to solve the problem.

As the Court itself said in a decision long ago, "bad cases make bad law." This is a bad case. I doubt in my analysis a month from now that I will praise this decision. The problem should have been solved by the legislature of Utah, which clearly DOES have jurisdiction over the definition of punitive damages in its state courts.

Congressman Billybob

Click for latest, "Lies, Lying Liars, and Harry Reid"