Does Clarence Thomas's Silence Matter? A entire term without speaking once during arguments

New York Times ^ | 02/17/2011

[SeekAndFind]

It will be five years next week since Justice Clarence Thomas spoke during oral argument at the Supreme Court. Before falling into this long silence, he posed a question on Feb. 22, 2006. In the past 40 years, no other justice has gone an entire term without speaking at least once during arguments, according to Timothy R. Johnson, a professor of political science at the University of Minnesota.

Can a justice effectively perform his duties without participating in oral argument? Does questioning the lawyers in court make much difference, or is it mostly a ritual, with the justices' thinking pretty much set beforehand?

CLICK ABOVE LINK TO READ THE DISCUSSION

[reagandemocrat]

ObamaCare, and by extension Obama’s entire “legacy”, is in jeopardy. The current make-up of the SC is problematic and they need to knock off just one judge.

Citizens United is a non-starter and Ginny’s income disclosure is a tempest-in-a-teapot.

Smells like desperation.

[Huck]

Here it is:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-1682.ZD.html

It was a first amendment case. Weird case. Thomas in the 5-4 majority with Kennedy, Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg. Scalia dissenting, along with Breyer, O’Connor, and Rehnquist.

[Texas resident]

The times can rail all they want about Clarence Thomas.
He is appointed for life.

[Lion Den Dan]

Judge should not be arguing the case before him. The attorneys present their case, the judge decides. If the attorneys are too stupid and inept to present all the facts in clear and concise terms, shame on them.

[SoFloFreeper]

Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg saws logs during Supreme Court case, media ignores

[CharlesWayneCT]

Supreme Court Cases are mostly about the review of court records from lower courts. Questioning appears to be aimed at changing other judge’s minds, not about learning more about the case.

[zeugma]

Oral arguments at that level are nothing but theater. Everything that is important should be in the briefs. Now, if I discovered he didn’t actually read the relevant briefs, that would be something completely different.

[VeniVidiVici]

They should can arguments before the USSC anyhow. What a waste of time.

[supercat]

If the attorneys are too stupid and inept to present all the facts in clear and concise terms, shame on them.

Unfortunately, cases are effectively decided on behalf not only of the actual litigants, but also on behalf of countless other people who are not parties to the case at hand but will be affected the precedent it sets.

[Monorprise]

Justice Clarence Thomas can speak when he wishes to speak.

While I would very much like to hear more from him I’m not about to tell him he has to speak up.

[RichInOC]

They’re called “hearings”, not “speakings”.

[stickywillie]

Perhaps Clarence will speak out on zer0’s eligibilty on March 4th. He certainly had a good chuckle about it recently.

[ctdonath2]

“Can a justice effectively perform his duties without participating in oral argument?”

What purpose does a few minutes of oral arguments serve when all parties submit thousands of pages of nuanced text? Thomas thinks “none”, as it amounts to theatrics. No oral argument has shown critical to the case.

Better oral arguments be ended as they serve no purpose for that court.

[K-Stater]

I would judge Justice Thomas by his deeds and not his words. And his deeds are pretty darned impressive.

[Monorprise]

I don’t think a lot of people would be happy with what he he will say.

Let’s say that the Federal court has a 5 to 4 decision in favor of Obama’s eligibility.

2 of them “justices” presumably on Obama’s side were appointed by Obama himself. If Obama was not eligible to be president then the court only has 7 members not 9 and thus the majority would have been the 4 that voted against Obama.

That sounds like a major constitutional crisis. One I would very much like to fight, as it would justifiably open into question the legitimacy of the Federal Employees in black robes deciding this matter.

That being said I don’t think there will be a 5 to 4 ruling on this issue. I think the Federal court will overwhelmingly side with it’s employers.(The Federal Government as now controlled by Obama) But what I would like to know how the injustices that Obama appointed treat the matter.

Do they respectfully recluse themselves knowing that depending upon the outcome they would not have a job? Or do they actually vote in a supreme display of arrogance?