The Supreme Court oral argument today in the federal campaign finance law limiting total contributions an individual may make to various candidates.

Adam Liptak thinks the Court is divided "along familiar ideological lines" and "prepared to strike down" the law:

“By having these limits, you are promoting democratic participation,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said. “Then the little people will count some.”

Justice Antonin Scalia responded, sarcastically, that he assumed “a law that only prohibits the speech of 2 percent of the country is O.K.”

Scalia responded "sarcastically." Why an adverb for Scalia's statement and not for Ginsburg's? It seems biased not to spread the adverbs around on both sides of the "familiar ideological line." Journalism should be judged by the fairness of the distribution of adverbs.

Help Adam Liptak give adverbial equality to Justice Ginsburg.
	"Then the little people will count some," said Justice Ginsburg, sententiously.
	"Then the little people will count some," said Justice Ginsburg, superciliously.
	"Then the little people will count some," said Justice Ginsburg, condescendingly.
	"Then the little people will count some," said Justice Ginsburg, grandiosely.
	"Then the little people will count some," said Justice Ginsburg, patronizingly.
	"Then the little people will count some," said Justice Ginsburg, maternally.
	"Then the little people will count some," said Justice Ginsburg, diminuitively.
	"Then the little people will count some," said Justice Ginsburg, pretentiously.
	"Then the little people will count some," said Justice Ginsburg, gloriously.
	"Then the little people will count some," said Justice Ginsburg, divaishly.
	"Then the little people will count some," said Justice Ginsburg, furtively.
	"Then the little people will count some," said Justice Ginsburg, wistfully.
pollcode.com free polls

UPDATE: Adam Liptak emails to say: "I meant to signal that he was saying the opposite of what he meant. The quoted words standing alone would mislead the casual reader. It also seemed to me to capture his tone." I know that was the function of the adverb, but it seems to me that the NYT is continually nudging us to view Scalia as mean/nasty... and I was having a little fun with it.