Posted on 02/23/2016 10:03:49 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Monday marked the first day the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. That day also marked 10 years since Justice Clarence Thomas asked a question from the bench.
Since then, Thomas has not even spoken from the bench during oral arguments except to crack a joke about Yale in 2013.
Thankfully, Thomas hasn't been completely mum on why he asks no questions.
At an event in North Carolina in June 2012, Thomas said he would get rid of oral arguments if he could, which sheds some light on why he might not be such an eager participant in them.
Thomas has also pointed to his Southern background and introverted nature as reasons for his epic silence.
"I don't see where that advances anything," Thomas said at a speech in 2012, 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."
Jay Wexler, a former clerk for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, has previously told Business Insider that Thomas is actually the most approachable of the justices.
"He gets kind of a bad rap because he doesn't talk at oral arguments," Wexler told us. "I think it's fine that he doesn't talk at oral arguments."
Other clerks at the Supreme Court also didn't hold Thomas' silence against him, according to Wexler. They took Thomas at his word that he just didn't think questions were all that helpful.
By contrast, Scalia often dominated the questioning during oral arguments.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
Perhaps it was the hi-tech lynching he took from the Democrat slave masters, angry that he left their plantation?
I would like to believe that he and Scalia had a “good cop bad cop” teaming going on. I just like the idea.
Scalia was just having fun. Like a cat playing with a mouse.
“Scalia was just having fun. Like a cat playing with a mouse.”
FYI, the Justices RARELY change their minds based on oral arguments...the decisions are usually made based upon the written briefs of the parties, submitted long before the oral arguments are made.
It was good to see Justice Thomas give one of the readings at the funeral mass of his friend and fellow Justice Scalia. God Bless you Justice Thomas.
Justice Thomas is awesome.
Sometimes papers are so badly written that the Judges need clarification on some point.
I’ve heard this for years. He thinks oral arguments are nothing but theater, so he doesn’t participate. He prefers to let his writings stand for themselves. Having read through many of the oral argument transcripts, I agree with him.
Oral argument rarely changes a Judge’s mind. Most of the time the lawyer makes an impassioned statement, then the Judge reads a pre-prepared opinion. Mostly, oral argument is a billing exercise of lawyers.
nice post - which I though of it!
So tell me again why there was not autopsy?
I know very few lawyers and have had little to do directly with the justice system, but that’s the impression I always got. All that dramatic oral argument stuff being decisive always seemed like movie world, to me.
Very little at this level. Even at trial level it is mostly mundane. Depending on the case you can get some showboating that can turn a jury but most is TV crap. A lot gets settled in chambers and they put on a little show for any crowd. My experience from about 20 years ago.
So tell me again why there was not autopsy?
<><><><><><><>
Eugene Scalia, one of the judge’s sons, said, “Our family just has no doubt that he was taken from us by natural causes.” The lawyer, on the Laura Ingraham radio show, added, “We accept that. We’re praying for him. We ask others to accept that and pray for him.”
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/no-death-conspiracy-says-scalia-family/article/2583459
Apparently Scalia’s family cares more about their memory of him than to pay attention to the braying of a bunch of conspiracy theorists, who immediately upon reading the benign results of the autopsy would bray again that the autopsy was rigged.
It is not the interests of the conspiracy theorist that an autopsy serves. He is a prominent national figure in a public office. It should be routine and mandatory that an autopsy be performed with such a figure.
It is not the interests of the conspiracy theorist that an autopsy serves. He is a prominent national figure in a public office. It should be routine and mandatory that an autopsy be performed with such a figure.
<><><><
Certainly on this forum, the majority of voices (I have no data to support this, just my impression from the threads) calling for the autopsy are conspiracy cranks.
Whose interests are being served by requiring an autopsy in a case like this?
Much to my amusement, I became the old, jaded, cynical, lawyer in the room. How time flies.
You couldn’t be more right. I grew up on. LA Law and thought that’s what my life would be. Oops
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.