Posted on 02/17/2011 6:42:24 AM PST by 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
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Style varies of course, but few questions are asked for the purpose of information. Oral argument has very little impact in most cases.
I really don’t care what he says or doesn’t say, it’s how he votes that matters.
Wish Obama would learn from his example.
I’d rather that Justice Thomas listen well as he appears to do. His final analysis most certainly outdoes the liberal chicken-lipped justices currently infesting the court. If you want an example of a fine African American intellectual, it is most certainly Justice Thomas.
On the other hand, if one wants an example of an AA t*rd, just wait for the next White House brief.
In the meantime the two dingbats speak enough for the entire court.
Amen
The New York Times hates conservatives. Nuff said...
I know someone who is an compulsive talker, he is dumber than a box of rocks and I am related to him.
Your tagline nails it the mostest, hands down!
RE: Silent Cal was a damn fine president and a man of very few words.
Dorothy Parker to President Coolidge: “I made a bet with a friend that I could get you to say more than two words.”.
Coolidge: “You lose!”
Many years later....
Dorothy Parker on being told of Coolidge’s death : “How can you tell?”
Beside this whole non-issue being a racist attack against Justice Thomas, whom they believe to be the weakest conservative, because of his color and failure to get back on the plantation when threatened.
The whole concept of the Court to HEAR oral argument is for the court to hear the best each side has to offer, not to insert new issues into the case or to help one side or the other to impress the Court. Insertion of judicial opinion during argument can easily insert political argument into the meaning of a decision long before the facts are weighed.
No Argument: Thomas Keeps 5-Year Silence [featuring an affirmative action zot]
The poster stated that Thomas was an affirmative action hire. This was also a NYTimes article. The left wants him gone.
The thing is, they elected an affirmative action president. And he ISN'T qualified. Thomas is.
There is no reason to ask questions if the Constitutional issue is clear cut from the beginning. It is not like the written arguments don’t cover every possible base.
In reading the comments of most Justices, it appears that they are mainly intended to create the illusion that they are great moral arbitrators, when in fact, they are only intended to rule on the law.
Once again proving that The NYSlimes™ is one of the great racist institutions in this country...
You learn more by listening than by talking.
Oral argument is primarily just a disguised debate between the justices themselves, or an attempt to get nifty sound bite quotes to justify a decision the justice has already reached, or simply a justice wanting to have a bit of fun.
Most of the ‘legal opinions’ are rendered by their aides anyway. The judges just vote aye or nay according to the instructions given them by their political masters. IMHO
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.