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.
Once again proving that The NYSlimes™ is one of the great racist institutions in this country...
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
The times can rail all they want about Clarence Thomas.
He is appointed for life.
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.
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.
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.
They should can arguments before the USSC anyhow. What a waste of time.
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.
They’re called “hearings”, not “speakings”.
“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.
I would judge Justice Thomas by his deeds and not his words. And his deeds are pretty darned impressive.