Of the 9 supreme court judges, what are their philosophies? conservatives or liberals etc?

Question

the 9 supreme court judges are:
1.William Hubbs Rehnquist;
2.John Paul Stevens;
3.Antonin Scalia;
4.Anthony M. Kennedy;
5.David Hackett Souter;
6.Clarence Thomas;
7.Ruth Bader Ginsburg;
8.Stephen Breyer;
9.Samuel A. Alito Jr.;

Answer 1

Not all of them fit neatly into boxes, certainly not just two boxes.

Many of them are conservative on some issues, liberal on others, and moderate on still others. So, despite what many people try to do, they cannot easily be sorted into just those two categories.

Renquist is no longer a Justice (having died last year), but was generally a conservative textualist, sometimes a strict constructionist. He followed the letter of the law, and didn't like to stretch it too far in any new directions.

Alito is a literalist, who favors government authority when in doubt. But while he won't bend the law to grant the government more authority than it should have, he will resolve most ambiguities in favor of the government position. Other than that, many people have compared his philosophy to Scalia's.

Scalia is an originalist, seeking to interpret the Constituion based on what he thinks the Framers would have intended. Despite assertions to the contrary, this does not make him a literalist or a strict constructionist, since he does interject interpretation into the text -- just nor modern interpretation.

Thomas is a fundamentalist, who beleives that the law should only limit people, never the government. He is perhaps the best example of a true political conservative on the bench.

Kennedy and Souter tend to be moderates, tending toward libertarian, favoring a modern interpretation within the logical intent of the law. They see the Constitution as most applicable when taken in modern context, directly contrary to Scalia's approach, but also tend to be unwilling to read too much into it beyond the extensions they see as inherently necessary and logically supported.

Bader-Ginsberg also tends toward a modern dynamic approach, balancing the needs of the law with social policy and civil rights. However, because she supports a wide range of issues, she usually ends up being a moderate voice in most non-civil-liberty issues.

I haven't read enough opinions of the others to be able to summarize them. The link below is someone else's summaries.

Answer 2

1.William Hubbs Rehnquist; DEAD
2.John Paul Stevens; LIB
3.Antonin Scalia; CON
4.Anthony M. Kennedy;MOD
5.David Hackett Souter; LIB
6.Clarence Thomas; CON
7.Ruth Bader Ginsburg; LIB
8.Stephen Breyer; LIB
9.Samuel A. Alito Jr.; CON
Roberts; CON

Answer 3

Not all of them fit neatly into boxes, certainly not just two boxes.

Many of them are conservative on some issues, liberal on others, and moderate on still others. So, despite what many people try to do, they cannot easily be sorted into just those two categories.

Renquist is no longer a Justice (having died last year), but was generally a conservative textualist, sometimes a strict constructionist. He followed the letter of the law, and didn't like to stretch it too far in any new directions.

Alito is a literalist, who favors government authority when in doubt. But while he won't bend the law to grant the government more authority than it should have, he will resolve most ambiguities in favor of the government position. Other than that, many people have compared his philosophy to Scalia's.

Scalia is an originalist, seeking to interpret the Constituion based on what he thinks the Framers would have intended. Despite assertions to the contrary, this does not make him a literalist or a strict constructionist, since he does interject interpretation into the text -- just nor modern interpretation.

Thomas is a fundamentalist, who beleives that the law should only limit people, never the government. He is perhaps the best example of a true political conservative on the bench.

Kennedy and Souter tend to be moderates, tending toward libertarian, favoring a modern interpretation within the logical intent of the law. They see the Constitution as most applicable when taken in modern context, directly contrary to Scalia's approach, but also tend to be unwilling to read too much into it beyond the extensions they see as inherently necessary and logically supported.

Bader-Ginsberg also tends toward a modern dynamic approach, balancing the needs of the law with social policy and civil rights. However, because she supports a wide range of issues, she usually ends up being a moderate voice in most non-civil-liberty issues.

I haven't read enough opinions of the others to be able to summarize them. The link below is someone else's summaries.

Answer 4

Rehnquist is dead - he was replaced by John Roberts, the new Cheif Justice by George W. Bush.

In brief, extremely broad terms:

Conservative leaning: Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, Souter

Liberal leaning: Stevens, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer

Here's a brief overview:
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/portlet/justices/


The following will give you a brief bio on each:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/biographiescurrent.pdf#search='supreme%20court%20justices'

Answer 5

Would take forever to read opinions, case law and dissenting opinions.... I'm not sure what you are asking, but the other posters gave you tons of research if you are interested.