I'd say Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg has more to answer for.
Posted on 06/11/2012 8:26:27 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has a reputation for being totally mute during oral arguments – at least during the past six years.
There may be a reason for that.
The Supreme Court's most silent justice spoke at an event in Charlotte, N.C. on Friday, revealing that he would do away with oral arguments if he could, the Charlotte Observer reports.
Thomas spoke at the unveiling of a portrait of David Sentelle, who's a chief judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and an ex-Charlotte resident.
“In Judge Sentelle I discerned a fellow displaced Southerner,” said Thomas, a Georgia native, according to the Observer.
Thomas has defended his six-year stint of silence, pointing to his Southern background as a possible explanation, according to an April report by the Associated Press.
"I don't see where that advances anything," Thomas said at a speech in April, referring to asking questions. "Maybe it's the Southerner in me. Maybe it's the introvert in me, I don't know. I think that when somebody's talking, somebody ought to listen."
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
“...I think that when somebody’s talking, somebody ought to listen.”
But what if it is a loony Leftist idiot that is foaming at the mouth with illogical, absurd, irrational, senseless, and fallacious drivel?
What should you do?
Oral arguments are for juries.
A couple months ago I met Justice Thomas’s mother. She works at a hospital in Savannah. I was thrilled and honored.
If it was up to me, I'd also require that all declared candidates for high public office be forced to wear a ski mask or hood with eye slits anytime they made a public appearance.
Just read this from a NY Times of last year:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/us/13thomas.html
Excerpt:
“If I invite you to argue your case, I should at least listen to you,” Thomas told a bar association in Richmond, Va., in 2000.
Justice Thomas has also complained about the difficulty of getting a word in edgewise. The current court is a sort of verbal firing squad, with the justices peppering lawyers with questions almost as soon as they begin their presentations.
In the 20 years that ended in 2008, the justices asked an average of 133 questions per hourlong argument, up from about 100 in the 15 years before that.
“The post-Scalia court, from 1986 onward, has become a much more talkative bench,” Professor Johnson said. Justice Antonin Scalia alone accounted for almost a fifth of the questions in the last 20 years.
Justice Thomas has said he finds the atmosphere in the courtroom distressing. “We look like ‘Family Feud,’ ” he told the bar group.
Justice Thomas does occasionally speak from the bench, when it is his turn to announce a majority opinion. He reads from a prepared text, and his voice is a gruff rumble.
He does not take pains, as some of his colleagues do, to explain the case in conversational terms to the civilians in the courtroom. He relies instead on legal Latin and citations to subparts of statutes and regulations.
His attitude toward oral arguments contrasts sharply with that of his colleagues, who seem to find questioning the lawyers who appear before them a valuable way to sharpen the issues in the case, probe weaknesses, consider consequences, correct misunderstandings and start a conversation among the justices that will continue in their private conferences.
By the time the justices hear arguments, they have read briefs from the parties and their supporters, and most justices say it would be a waste of time to have advocates merely repeat what they have already said in writing.
Justice Thomas is entirely correct! AGAIN!
For those who think that Justice Thomas is like Harpo Marx, he actually HAS asked questions in the past.
According to the Times:
_______________________________
Justice Thomas’s last question from the bench, on Feb. 22, 2006, came in a death penalty case. He was not particularly loquacious before then, but he did speak a total of 11 times earlier in that term and the previous one.
His few questions were typically pithy and pointed. He pressed a defense lawyer, for instance, in a 2005 argument about possible race discrimination in jury selection.
“Is there anything in the record to alert us to the race of the prosecutor?” he asked. “Would it make any difference? There seemed to be some suggestion that there are stereotypes at play.”
Justice Thomas’s most famous comments also came in a case involving race.
In a 2002 argument over a Virginia law banning cross burning, his impassioned reflections changed the tone of the discussion and may well have altered the outcome of the case. He recalled “almost 100 years of lynching” in the South by the Ku Klux Klan and other groups.
“This was a reign of terror, and the cross was a symbol of that reign of terror,” he said. “It was intended to cause fear and to terrorize a population.”
The court ruled that states may make it a crime to burn a cross if the purpose is intimidation.
If it was up to me, I'd also require that all declared candidates for high public office be forced to wear a ski mask or hood with eye slits anytime they made a public appearance.
That would be appropriate, since they are stealing us blind.
I'd say Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg has more to answer for.
Somehow, I had the impression BI was a fairly conservative — or at least objective — publication. But, this story (and the others on the homepage) made it look like yet another leftwing asylum.
Either that, or they are going to have to get rid of that Erin person.
That is one of the major considerations in this presidential election. Next presidential term could see a pocketful of SC justices.
Let them finish their spewage and then politely say "We're praying for you ."
Seek the answer.
From Ayn Rand, we have ... "Man’s basic vice, the source of all his evils, is the act of unfocusing his mind, the suspension of his consciousness, which is not blindness, but the refusal to see, not ignorance, but the refusal to know. Irrationality is the rejection of man’s means of survival and, therefore, a commitment to a course of blind destruction; that which is anti-mind, is anti-life."
That answer is from ...
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/irrationality.html
He’s right. I heard the orals for the case about cops putting GPS devices on vehicles. The gov’t lawyer was pulling answers out of his ass. The process is useless.
I know it is not required for a justice to appear at State of the Union speeches, but is it required for a justice to sit for the oral arguments? Why couldn’t Justice Thomas just read the transcripts?
But what if it is a loony Leftist idiot that is foaming at the mouth with illogical, absurd, irrational, senseless, and fallacious drivel? .... at should you do?Simple. Grab your pen and legal pad and write down notes like:
Mentally ill. Idiot. Moron. You lose. See Ya.That's about all you need to help you decide.
Where'd you buy your law degree?
Too bad he won’t ask a question about the usurper’s ineligibility.
Supreme Cowards.
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.