[AnAmericanMother]

There is an almost identical thread running, where I posted this to alessandro:

Certainly you're entitled to prefer your paisan. < wink > But how judges behave in oral arguments says very little about their competence.

Awhile back on public television, I saw an interesting talk Justice Thomas had with a group of high school students. They asked very challenging questions, and he gave remarkably honest answers. One of the kids asked why he does not say much in oral arguments - he responded that it was for a couple of reasons. First, he felt that too many questions in oral argument were "showboating" - he wanted to allow the lawyers to present their case without interrupting (implying that such questions are largely for the purpose of showing off - I happen to agree with him). Second, he mentioned that as a young man he had trouble shaking his "Geechee" accent (from the Ogeechee River, the Savannah equivalent more or less of Gullah) and that made him somewhat diffident about public speaking because of the scorn that rural accent incurred.

So his silence in oral argument has nothing to do with his intellectual ability. Still waters run deep.

link to other thread

[4CJ]

Awhile back on public television, I saw an interesting talk Justice Thomas had with a group of high school students. ... Second, he mentioned that as a young man he had trouble shaking his "Geechee" accent (from the Ogeechee River, the Savannah equivalent more or less of Gullah) and that made him somewhat diffident about public speaking because of the scorn that rural accent incurred.

Been there, done that, watched the same show! C-SPAN series about America & the Courts IIRC. He got me when he pulled out his pocket Constitution - his opinions are based on what was within, not his personal opinion.

[alessandrofiaschi]

In fact, Thomas intellectual ability is not strictly related to his "silence". He showed his limits in many few opinions.