Maybe all he wants to do is collect a paycheck. There are many people in positions that really don't care as long as they're paid.
4
The loss of words by Justice Thomas leaves me nearly at a loss for words. I question his stated motive for not asking any questions. Frankly, he is not pulling his weight with his silence.
1
To those of you who believe black and white is the issue I say, a black disgrace is the same as a white disgrace.
Clarence Thomas has discriminated against women and minorities for most of his career.
Anyone needing evidence can write anytime.
[email protected]
Clarence Thomas has discriminated against women and minorities for most of his career.
Anyone needing evidence can write anytime.
[email protected]
3
While I have strong feelings not in Justice Thomas's favor, I do agree with him to some extent. The lawyers have filed detailed briefs, in some cases hundreds of pages, there are the amicus briefs and there are oral arguments. Is a question or two really going to add that much of a difference? If one has not established their position with all that available information, then one shouldn't be sitting on the bench of the Supreme Court.
3
I compare justices speaking on presentations like coaches dressing up like roosters in eye-catching outfits, that it's not at all about the process but just to get some attention.
1
To get into a good college or law school these days, you have to have a demonstrably high level of intellectual curiosity and leadership. Passive learning is very far out of vogue.
I wonder how many of the chosen few who get into elite schools today have done so on a record of not having spoken in class for ten years.
I wonder how many of the chosen few who get into elite schools today have done so on a record of not having spoken in class for ten years.
3
It's the old saying. Better to keep your mouth shut and have them think you a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt. The man is an empty suit.
5
As an educater of sorts, I can say that that kind of silence is an indication of either a serious intelligence deficit, or deep emotional problems. Shyness is excusable in children; it is not excusable in adults with so much resposability. I don't buy his rationalization for his silence either.
I disagree strongly with Scalia and other consevatives on the bench. But I do not think they should be removed from their offices.
Thomas, on the other hand, is exhibit A for why we should rethink lifetime appointments. There has to be some kind of review. He is clearly unfit for the job.
I disagree strongly with Scalia and other consevatives on the bench. But I do not think they should be removed from their offices.
Thomas, on the other hand, is exhibit A for why we should rethink lifetime appointments. There has to be some kind of review. He is clearly unfit for the job.
5
I find it very hard to believe that in ten years and hundreds of cases and thousands of briefs, there was not a single one about which Clarence Thomas (or any (other) sentient person) felt a need or desire to get clarification or expansion on a single point.
Clarence Thomas' silence doesn't even count as "phoning it in." But then, his views -- or the views of his wife's clients -- are pretty predictable from the get-go.
Clarence Thomas' silence doesn't even count as "phoning it in." But then, his views -- or the views of his wife's clients -- are pretty predictable from the get-go.
6
As a Southerner I am always rankled when I see references to lynchings and the Ku Klux Klan as being limited to the South. The original center of the slave trade was NYC and lynchings and the Klan activities occurred nation wide. The South does not and never has had a monopoly on racism. This is an inconvenient fact for Yankees.
1
Thomas and Scalia attend the same ultra right wing Catholic church and all decisions are foregone by adherence to what is effectively a cult. So questioning in and of itself is "bad". Not a great stance for a Justice of the Supreme Court. Women will suffer most from his position on the bench as will all others( religions included) open to questioning and the principles of The Enlightenment which governed the foundation of the country. Treason has many forms.
1
I have been appalled at the opprobrium thrown at Justice Thomas ever since nomination. That he is a Black Conservative is more that the Left can stand. In their minds he is a traitor. The references to him and a popular cookie have been numerous and continuous.
3
Does it really matter whether he asks questions? We already know that he has prepared his answers to every possible issue!
The man was never qualified to follow in the footsteps of Thurgood Marshall. Still isn't.
4
Funny, if Justice Thomas were a silent progressive, a mocking column like this would be condemned as racist. But since he's a conservative, anything goes.
3
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.
2
The sad-sack case of one Clarence Thomas could be ended by him having an epiphany—to finally tell the truth, profoundly apologize to Anita Hill and the people of the United States, and THEN RESIGN—
And let the nation's first mixed race president appoint a long overdue African American successor. This will also help pave the way for Senator Bernard Sanders' upcoming and badly needed "revolution".
And let the nation's first mixed race president appoint a long overdue African American successor. This will also help pave the way for Senator Bernard Sanders' upcoming and badly needed "revolution".
1
Two current SCOTUS justices have demonstrated terrible judicial restraint at either ends of the spectrum.
Justice Thomas has not uttered one question in ten years, purportedly out of his desire to let lawyers present cases unencumbered by those same questions. That in itself is preposterous considering the function of the SCOTUS is to develop Constitutional rulings that become case law for all other courts. If judges do not utilize questions to discover your their answers as one of nine judges then this makes it seem that you vote with a majority as a silent member, which Justice Thomas too often does. He is one of five so-called conservative-leaning judges who rarely breaks ranks with Alito, Scalia, Roberts and Kennedy.
Justice Scalia is the other end of the restraint spectrum where he refuses to restrain his religious preference in applying "blind justice" fairness. His rulings needlessly reflect his personal religious beliefs as in when he had to recuse himself during the 2003 "Under God" Pledge of Allegiance case or in the DOMA case where he wanted to "vote using his Catholic conscience".
Both Thomas and Scalia have been of poor character. When they're replaced, SCOTUS may again represent blindfolded Lady Justice - "the blindfold represents objectivity, in that justice is or should be meted out objectively, without fear or favour, regardless of money, wealth, power, or identity; blind justice and impartiality. "
Justice Thomas has not uttered one question in ten years, purportedly out of his desire to let lawyers present cases unencumbered by those same questions. That in itself is preposterous considering the function of the SCOTUS is to develop Constitutional rulings that become case law for all other courts. If judges do not utilize questions to discover your their answers as one of nine judges then this makes it seem that you vote with a majority as a silent member, which Justice Thomas too often does. He is one of five so-called conservative-leaning judges who rarely breaks ranks with Alito, Scalia, Roberts and Kennedy.
Justice Scalia is the other end of the restraint spectrum where he refuses to restrain his religious preference in applying "blind justice" fairness. His rulings needlessly reflect his personal religious beliefs as in when he had to recuse himself during the 2003 "Under God" Pledge of Allegiance case or in the DOMA case where he wanted to "vote using his Catholic conscience".
Both Thomas and Scalia have been of poor character. When they're replaced, SCOTUS may again represent blindfolded Lady Justice - "the blindfold represents objectivity, in that justice is or should be meted out objectively, without fear or favour, regardless of money, wealth, power, or identity; blind justice and impartiality. "
2
Has anyone checked his pulse recently?
3
As a criminal defense lawyer I have been in hundreds of hearings and dozens of trials. It is my not-so-humble opinion that any judge who doesn't ask questions during oral argument is shirking his or her duty to understand both sides of the issue. It's an opportunity to challenge the premises and conclusions of the arguments on both sides, to try and understand something that may be unclear in the briefing, to introduce a point of law that both sides may have missed, etc., etc.
It's hard to know the real reason Justice Thomas asks no questions. As far as I know he's never claimed to be an intellectual giant, nor has he claimed to be intellectually unfit for the job. He writes (or he encourages his clerks to write) workman-like mean-spirited opinions. His opinions in criminal cases are, more often than not, heartless, written with a peculiar kind of venom of indifference, if that makes any sense. He has no compassion for prisoners and very little respect for the constitutional protections that are the rights of the accused. He is, in essence, a sad, bitter man who has no business on the Supreme Court.
His silence actually does speak, and quite loudly in a way. He appears to have has contempt for the whole judicial process and wants the world to know it.
It's hard to know the real reason Justice Thomas asks no questions. As far as I know he's never claimed to be an intellectual giant, nor has he claimed to be intellectually unfit for the job. He writes (or he encourages his clerks to write) workman-like mean-spirited opinions. His opinions in criminal cases are, more often than not, heartless, written with a peculiar kind of venom of indifference, if that makes any sense. He has no compassion for prisoners and very little respect for the constitutional protections that are the rights of the accused. He is, in essence, a sad, bitter man who has no business on the Supreme Court.
His silence actually does speak, and quite loudly in a way. He appears to have has contempt for the whole judicial process and wants the world to know it.
6
For all of the apologists for this guy, this is truly pathetic. We're talking about one of the US 'Supremes', not our local postmaster. Thomas has issues and should be booted from this institution that serves as the highest court in the nation.
2
I believe everyone who watches cases coming to the court and of course Judge Thomas knows exactly how he'll vote before a case is presented to the bench.
He already knows what he needs to know to make his decision. No need to ask for more information.
Meanwhile, he has guaranteed lifetime employment, no performance reviews, no merit pay to strive for, no fear of a lay off, down sizing, off shoring, outsourcing, never a reduction of benefits, no repercussion for making a bad decision, no stock holders or boss to fire him, nothing of interest to say that hasn't been already said by someone else, and no chance of making a living as a comedian. So why take any risk that could attract the kind of negative attention given often to another controversial Judge, Antonin Scalia?
What the quiet Thomas and the outspoken activist Scalia do have in common is that they serve as fine examples as to why America needs term limits for all Supreme Court judges. Joe Nocera gave his nod to a great proposal for this as he exited the Opinion section for Sports. His proposal also has its advocates on both the left and right. It's really worth taking a serious look at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/opinion/and-thats-my-opinion.html
He already knows what he needs to know to make his decision. No need to ask for more information.
Meanwhile, he has guaranteed lifetime employment, no performance reviews, no merit pay to strive for, no fear of a lay off, down sizing, off shoring, outsourcing, never a reduction of benefits, no repercussion for making a bad decision, no stock holders or boss to fire him, nothing of interest to say that hasn't been already said by someone else, and no chance of making a living as a comedian. So why take any risk that could attract the kind of negative attention given often to another controversial Judge, Antonin Scalia?
What the quiet Thomas and the outspoken activist Scalia do have in common is that they serve as fine examples as to why America needs term limits for all Supreme Court judges. Joe Nocera gave his nod to a great proposal for this as he exited the Opinion section for Sports. His proposal also has its advocates on both the left and right. It's really worth taking a serious look at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/opinion/and-thats-my-opinion.html
2
When Clarence Thomas was nominated by George W ,to the Supreme Court, and finally appointed, only the second African American in history, after Thurgood Marshall, I was shocked, jarred! Perhaps George W was "under pressure" to nominate a Black, but I always wondered why he selected Clarence Thomas!! A man who I thought and think is/was disconnected from his race and heritage. Clarence, who disrespected Anita Hill, no doubt in my mind that Ms. Hill told the truth. He did what Anita Hill said he did. I recall Thomas' phrase "high tech lynching" he used during his conformation hearings. He was defending himself against Ms. Hill. Who was out to lynch him! I think many folks saw the man for what and who he is, a person lacking respect for his race, women, people with limited income, Americans who were and are struggling. Clarence Thomas,on The Supreme Court! America got shafted! Speak? Talk? Could/would Clarence contribute some worthwhile words/comments on issues such as affirmation action,health care, crimes against African Americans, prison reform, blacks and minorities ? Maybe it is "good" that he does not talk, speak. Maybe Clarence's silences is golden. When I was a child I was told that it is best to keep ones mouth shut/closed and be thought a dummy that to open ones mouth and prove without a doubt that one is a dummy. My opinion, let Clarence Thomas sit still and be silent. Because God only knows what might be the consequence if he uttered one word.
1
Having been around at the time, I remember every voice on both political sides guessing that President Bush would nominate a black person. We have a good jurist in Clarence Thomas.
Kenya mistakenly expects individuals to simply fall in line with the collective like the commissars always insist. Sorry, but this is America! We are all (supposed to be) independent complete persons.
I regret that Kenya yearns to only fit into a group because the people that came here over the oceans were the second sons and the non-favorites of their families - and those who insisted that THEY could do better than simply following in the family trade.
America became the best country in the world (ask any migrant) by taking everyone else's unwanted children and melting them together into a new place to live free lives. I regret the kind of education that so many millennials seem to have been saddled with.
Kenya mistakenly expects individuals to simply fall in line with the collective like the commissars always insist. Sorry, but this is America! We are all (supposed to be) independent complete persons.
I regret that Kenya yearns to only fit into a group because the people that came here over the oceans were the second sons and the non-favorites of their families - and those who insisted that THEY could do better than simply following in the family trade.
America became the best country in the world (ask any migrant) by taking everyone else's unwanted children and melting them together into a new place to live free lives. I regret the kind of education that so many millennials seem to have been saddled with.
3
"Were Justice Thomas to talk, people would listen." I think that this one of the most disingenuous pieces I've read in this paper so far and that includes columns by Mr. David Brooks & Co. I think "Justice" Thomas has done a LOT of "talking" most, if not all of it, terribly and inhumanely. As I look at his hard, cold eyes staring at me on my monitor, the only reason I'm not spitting at his image is, I'd have to clean the mess.
And that, is precisely what any future real justice of the SCOTUS will have to do begin to do, if we're able to vote a another president in on the Democratic ticket, when the next justice eventually retires or resigns.
From the travesty of Anita Hill on, "Justice Thomas" you, Alito, Scalia, Roberts and Kennedy represent (some of) the worst of this country. You and your "colleagues" are a collective scourge.
2-1-16@6:19 pm et
And that, is precisely what any future real justice of the SCOTUS will have to do begin to do, if we're able to vote a another president in on the Democratic ticket, when the next justice eventually retires or resigns.
From the travesty of Anita Hill on, "Justice Thomas" you, Alito, Scalia, Roberts and Kennedy represent (some of) the worst of this country. You and your "colleagues" are a collective scourge.
2-1-16@6:19 pm et
3
Justice Thomas knows it is better to be quiet than sing a bad song. He is out of his league on the supreme court; his ability to understand legal complexities is far below those of his learned colleagues.
3
M.W., at least Thomas gets to make his own mind up. As liberal Democrats, the three women are forbidden by The Party to have differing opinions and must vote the party line. They might as well be pigeons punching images on a screen in a B. F.. Skinner box.
bash him or cheer him, he's in there for life.
"He spoke about...such matters as women having sex with animals and films showing group sex or rape scenes" she said, adding that on several occasions Thomas graphically described "his own sexual prowess" and the details of his anatomy.
-Anita Hill, on the unwanted advances by her sexually perverted boss, Clarence Thomas
-Anita Hill, on the unwanted advances by her sexually perverted boss, Clarence Thomas
4
He has been a fraud through and through.
6
Thomas is a perfect example of that old Peter principle at work!
4
What if all 9 justices took Thomas' approach and did not utter a single word at the Supreme Court. What kind of hearing would that be where only the lawyers speak, Thomas is not performing his duties, and he is piggybacking on the questions asked by the other 8 justices.
6
In other words "I wasn't paying attention."
8
Why ask questions when you already know how you will vote.
5
I am a student of Law and I am closely associated with judiciary and I do not subscribe to the views of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judge.
Agreed, Supreme Court is not a court on facts and only question of law has to be decided there. But I am surprised as to how the learned Judge has not attempted to get any clarification, or posed any question, while an advocate argues his case, for almost a decade of his Judgeship at Supreme Court. Interrupting an advocate while arguing is one thing and getting clarification is another. We have to remember that Supreme Court being the highest court of the land, with no more appeal avenues except the President, Judges decorating the Bench will have to be very very careful, as their ruling will determine the fate of an individual. Also, the ruling, coming from the Supreme Court, will be quoted as precedent. Therefore, judges in Supreme Court will have to be doubly cautious to avoid any mistake. I earnestly believe that Justice Thomas should break his vow and his silence and conduct the court in a normal manner.
Agreed, Supreme Court is not a court on facts and only question of law has to be decided there. But I am surprised as to how the learned Judge has not attempted to get any clarification, or posed any question, while an advocate argues his case, for almost a decade of his Judgeship at Supreme Court. Interrupting an advocate while arguing is one thing and getting clarification is another. We have to remember that Supreme Court being the highest court of the land, with no more appeal avenues except the President, Judges decorating the Bench will have to be very very careful, as their ruling will determine the fate of an individual. Also, the ruling, coming from the Supreme Court, will be quoted as precedent. Therefore, judges in Supreme Court will have to be doubly cautious to avoid any mistake. I earnestly believe that Justice Thomas should break his vow and his silence and conduct the court in a normal manner.
5
Another twenty years of silence and we can throw him an anniversary party.
Perhaps Clarence Thomas is mindful of the adage "Better to remain silent and be thought the fool than to speak and remove all doubt." I was horrified when he was appointed that he would remain a justice for the rest of my life. So far that horror of mine is well-placed.
If ever there was a rock solid reason to vote for a Democrat in 2016, avoidance of another Clarence Thomas (or Scalia or Alito or Roberts) on the bench should secure it.
If ever there was a rock solid reason to vote for a Democrat in 2016, avoidance of another Clarence Thomas (or Scalia or Alito or Roberts) on the bench should secure it.
14
One can only take his and Scalia's Originalist view of the constitution to absurd levels. Just look at their dissent in the Hudson case where a prison inmate was brutalized by prison guards “The Eighth Amendment is not, and should not be turned into, a National Code of Prison Regulation.”
Taken to its logical conclusion would Thomas overrule Loving vs. VA which overturned miscegenation laws thus declaring his own marriage to be invalid?
If there is a Republican president and there is a vacancy on the court chances are they would pick Janice Rogers Brown from the D.C Circuit. A women who thinks the New Deal was the "Triumph of our Socialist revolution" and advocates going back to the Lochner era where labor laws passed during the progressive era were declared unconstitutional.
Taken to its logical conclusion would Thomas overrule Loving vs. VA which overturned miscegenation laws thus declaring his own marriage to be invalid?
If there is a Republican president and there is a vacancy on the court chances are they would pick Janice Rogers Brown from the D.C Circuit. A women who thinks the New Deal was the "Triumph of our Socialist revolution" and advocates going back to the Lochner era where labor laws passed during the progressive era were declared unconstitutional.
6
In Rehnquist's book, "all the laws but one", and in Leonard Levy's writings, you learn that the time given to oral arguments has declined from 6 hours (1789-1850s) to 4 hours 1860s-1930s) to our current time 3 hours, due to the increasing amount of case law, and precedent. As our law has become more settled there is less need for oral argument and questions. Rehnquist went on to state that in any particular case often an inferior court judge had asked a question similar to those asked at a SCOTUS hearing so that SCOTUS judges are only giving the attorney's chances to restate their case. In a sense, Justice Thomas reflects this deference to our immense history of law.
4
As a frequent listener of SCOTUS oral arguments, I can understand why Justice Thomas chooses to keep quiet.. Between the Scalia / Breyer proxy wars and various interruptions from the remaining Justices, the parties arguing their cases are often left with much less than the 30 minutes they are allotted. That said, if I were arguing I'd be a bit frustrated that Thomas seems to limit his consideration to the written briefs and the responses to questions from his colleagues. Aside from non-verbal communication, what does he gain by being in the courtroom? Everyone has access to the oral argument audio and written briefs..
2
Has anyone ever seen an interview/talk with him? Search YouTube. The man is warm, charming, hilarious, gracious, humble, clearly smart, and has the utmost respect of his colleagues. I've never been convinced by the argument that he refuses to participate in oral argument because he's a deeply troubled man with an enormous chip on his shoulder, or because he's stupid, or because [some other tired insult that gets hurled his way all the time]. That appears to be more the stock response of the left not able to come to terms with an African American who's *gasp* a conservative. If Justice Thomas were a liberal his silence would be interpreted positively; as stoic, contemplative, thoughtful, serious etc. etc. He would be a champion of this paper!
3
I haven't seen an interview or "talkshow" with this person. I don't need to.
I am a citizen on of the United States of America. Mr Thomas is an appointed person on the highest court in my country. Nothing but the color of his skin and some vacuous writings got him where he is.
In my view this person is absolutely unqualified to do the job he is going to be paid to do until he dies or resigns.
And he knows it, and he knows it's a scam. And he thinks it's his right.
And he is, I think, wrong.
I am a citizen on of the United States of America. Mr Thomas is an appointed person on the highest court in my country. Nothing but the color of his skin and some vacuous writings got him where he is.
In my view this person is absolutely unqualified to do the job he is going to be paid to do until he dies or resigns.
And he knows it, and he knows it's a scam. And he thinks it's his right.
And he is, I think, wrong.
2
I read the criticisms about Thomas: lazy, closed minded, ... These were the same things said about his predecessor Thurgood Marshall.
1
Actually, no.
Justice Thurgood Marshall was widely praised and was an icon of the Civil Rights Movement, whose legacy Thomas has been trying to dismantle over the last 25 years.
Bush's nomination of Thomas to replace him was the final conservative insult to the Civil Rights Movement.
Nice try.
Justice Thurgood Marshall was widely praised and was an icon of the Civil Rights Movement, whose legacy Thomas has been trying to dismantle over the last 25 years.
Bush's nomination of Thomas to replace him was the final conservative insult to the Civil Rights Movement.
Nice try.
4
But sadly. in the case of Clarence Thomas, the criticisms are true. Let's remember that this empathy-challenged black man would never have been confirmed given the riveting Anita Hill testimony, were it not for the fact that they chose testimony of the black man over that of the black woman. It was wholly because he was a male. Black organizations have come to bitterly regret that lapse in judgment and so have I.
3
Justice Thomas has plenty to say. It's just that we are unworthy to hear it.
Give Thomas some credit, he said nothing and got over 1000 New York Times readers to comment on it.
12
Imagine a Supreme Court where every justice said absolutely nothing during the oral arguments. Every one of them had their reason: it's not helpful, we should listen not talk, we've already read the briefs, I don't like the sound of my voice. Lawyers from each side presented their arguments, then left the room.
Is that a court of law?
Is that a court of law?
9
No that's a court of 9 flaws.
2
This person is a token. He knows it and is spending his time taking it to the bank. As we have already learned, he has nothing interesting to say.
14
I'd normally be surprised by the racist tone of this article but the NY Times and most of its readers clearly fit the mold of Robert Byrd Democrats. If a minority person disagrees with the ruling liberal overlords, they must be inferior in some way.
4
It really is amazing the fixation on Thomas and how he's berated and shamed by progressives for not being a 'proper' African American.
The same Robert Byrd who compiled the most liberal record in the senate from 1980 until his death? (Even more liberal than Ted Kennedy!)
The same guy who maintained an A rating from the NAACP during that time on civil rights?
If you're looking for old segregationists who never saw the light, check out Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms.
The same guy who maintained an A rating from the NAACP during that time on civil rights?
If you're looking for old segregationists who never saw the light, check out Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms.
2
Justice Thomas’ reasoning about not asking questions is unobjectionable in and of itself, but that’s because he listens to and benefits from his fellow justices’ questions. If they all refrained from asking questions, what then? There are issues and fine points that require probing questions. In the broader scheme of things, the silence argument doesn't make sense.
8
I would not sign his time sheets. Would you?
Even if you are not disturbed by Bush41 or even find him admirable, the nomination of Thomas is a permanent stain.
An immense insult to African-Americans for starters; to nominate Thomas for the "black seat" of Thurgood Marshall verges on the unforgivable.
Of course, it was bizarrely prescient - Thomas cast the deciding vote in Bush v Gore that gave us the global scale catastrophe that was Bush43.
I suggest for any and every progressive, democrat, independent, even a few republicans - focus on November 2016. The next president will likely appoint four Justices of the Supreme Court.
An immense insult to African-Americans for starters; to nominate Thomas for the "black seat" of Thurgood Marshall verges on the unforgivable.
Of course, it was bizarrely prescient - Thomas cast the deciding vote in Bush v Gore that gave us the global scale catastrophe that was Bush43.
I suggest for any and every progressive, democrat, independent, even a few republicans - focus on November 2016. The next president will likely appoint four Justices of the Supreme Court.
13
So what you're saying is that there's a set way that African Americans should behave and think?
Clarence Thomas had to endure both Biden and Kennedy in his confirmation hearings. He has earned the right to do as he pleAses. Btw the next President will not be Billary Clinton nor Bernie Sanders.
I've never learned anything while talking. But really, who cares?
5
With the amount of questions the other 8 throw at the lawyers, I bet there is hardly a question Thomas has that isn't asked by someone else during argument.
2
Every time I think of Clarence Thomas, I remember that he sits on the Supreme Court in the colossal shadow of Thurgood Marshall, and I become furious about Thomas's appointment all over again. He has to be one of the most appalling appointments in the history of SCOTUS. His 25-year tenure is an ongoing insult to the American justice system.
23
This is contempt plain and simple.
The man should not be a sitting judge, let alone a member of The Supreme Court. He makes a mockery of it and the whole country with his behavior.
The man should not be a sitting judge, let alone a member of The Supreme Court. He makes a mockery of it and the whole country with his behavior.
11
Thomas has supporters? Who are they?
8
Neal,
Patriots, the religious, the people who remember the pathetic circus that Edward Kennedy turned those hearings into which STILL stands as an insult to the Senate Judiciary system. These people support Thomas.
This will shock Neal's neighbors, but there are lots of people with black skin in this country who feel a bit more ennobled when they recall that there is a black person on the Court - named by a Republican, of course.
The same party Dr. Martin Luther King joined.
Patriots, the religious, the people who remember the pathetic circus that Edward Kennedy turned those hearings into which STILL stands as an insult to the Senate Judiciary system. These people support Thomas.
This will shock Neal's neighbors, but there are lots of people with black skin in this country who feel a bit more ennobled when they recall that there is a black person on the Court - named by a Republican, of course.
The same party Dr. Martin Luther King joined.
5
Another Bush mistake - this one George Sr. and another Biden mistake - as Senate Judiciary chair who hideously insulted and defamed Prof. Anita Hill. Clarence Thomas remains professionally and personally unqualified to have even been nominated for SCOTUS. However, that circus was a brilliant light shone on a nasty corner of institutional misogyny by all those men at the highest reaches of the federal government.
21
Anita Hill lost ALL credibility when after this supposed incident we all heard about, SHE followed THOMAS to her next job. Truth hurts, don't it?
This is a not a case of silence is golden,
This is more a case of tongue tied and wooden,
Also a case of coming to court for snoring,
a case of disengaging,
The enigmatic air he has been cultivating,
No longer is intriguing,
Instead it is wearing
on the nerves of those watching,
he is insipid and boring,
after a decade if the 8 others on the bench
are intimidating,
and from his Georgia accent, embarrassed,
Clarence Thomas is hiding,
Then befitting of his job he's not behaving,
and he should be due for a surefire firing,
That he's appointed for life
that's what is terrifying,
Imagine if all his colleagues
took his inane vow of silence,
The Supreme Court would darken
We wouldn't see its process,
It would seem to us as though
it's in a never ending recess.
This is more a case of tongue tied and wooden,
Also a case of coming to court for snoring,
a case of disengaging,
The enigmatic air he has been cultivating,
No longer is intriguing,
Instead it is wearing
on the nerves of those watching,
he is insipid and boring,
after a decade if the 8 others on the bench
are intimidating,
and from his Georgia accent, embarrassed,
Clarence Thomas is hiding,
Then befitting of his job he's not behaving,
and he should be due for a surefire firing,
That he's appointed for life
that's what is terrifying,
Imagine if all his colleagues
took his inane vow of silence,
The Supreme Court would darken
We wouldn't see its process,
It would seem to us as though
it's in a never ending recess.
7
Wow! Stock-standard liberal Supreme Court talking points in poetry form!
It's important to our society that the court is not some hidden group of people who won't come out in the open and show their humanity. Although, at times, their discussions may seem unnecessary, they're actually performing an essential service.
4
It would have been nice to read an article which put Thomas in perspective.
Who speaks the most? Who is quiet, but not silent. Mr. Thomas seems to think there are only two options -- motormouth or silence. Surely there is an option to ask an occasionally clarifying question.
Who speaks the most? Who is quiet, but not silent. Mr. Thomas seems to think there are only two options -- motormouth or silence. Surely there is an option to ask an occasionally clarifying question.
4
Justice Thomas' performance as a Supreme Court Justice should be based solely on his opinions as a justice.
Whether he opens his mouth or not during oral argument is irrelevant.
Whether or not Anita Hill was correct or not in her accusations are irrelevant to his performance as a Justice.
I don't know if Anita Hill was correct in her accusations.
If correct those accusations speak to Thomas' character and should have caused his confirmation to be denied.
But now the only important thing about Thomas are his decisions which are a disaster.
Whether he opens his mouth or not during oral argument is irrelevant.
Whether or not Anita Hill was correct or not in her accusations are irrelevant to his performance as a Justice.
I don't know if Anita Hill was correct in her accusations.
If correct those accusations speak to Thomas' character and should have caused his confirmation to be denied.
But now the only important thing about Thomas are his decisions which are a disaster.
6
Justice Thomas' decisions line up proudly with the intentions of the Founders of the country. He will never make his opinions into law just because it'll make more party invitations come rolling in as seems to happen on the 9th Circuit.
1
Interesting. I suppose we can make exceptions to some of the intentions and actual acts of the founders. Such as those that provided that not only could women not vote, neither could Justice Thomas, had he lived in that era. And perhaps we can look past the fact that the Constitution as conceived and written by the founders permitted men to be owned, bought and sold.
Had he a voice and vote in the 1860's I am sure his originalism would have led him to oppose the Emancipation Proclamation as well as the 13th and 14th amendments.
Had he a voice and vote in the 1860's I am sure his originalism would have led him to oppose the Emancipation Proclamation as well as the 13th and 14th amendments.
3
he put bush in office - case closed
Duh? After the vulgarity involved in Thomas' selection and his so-described "20th century lynching," he's had something caught in his throat for the past decade. I'd like to think he has a clue, but were it not for his clerks, he would not have any writings either. Yet, he does damage being a solid right vote without fail. He knows where his allegiances lie and he won't dare test them.
13
Maybe Justice Thomas is following the advice of Abraham Lincoln: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."
12
I just don't understand his lack of intellectual curiosity.
8
He never should have been confirmed.
19
During those 10 years has he produced any written opinions -- written by himself, not by skilled clerks?
6
I download and listen to all the oral arguments; I find them entertaining, but it's clear that the justices are not querying the attorneys as much as they are making points with their fellow justices in preparation for the conference that follows. I suspect Thomas is reluctant to tip his hand.
2
Thomas was apparently installed to cast the corporate vote, which he's done very well, and on the q.t.
3
Thomas was nominated by Bush Sr. and confirmed to SCOTUS to garner some of the black vote for the GOP.
2
All Agencies of Government Needs Some Transparency
A Justice has a need to present ration for his vote in the decisions of the Court so that the People subject to those decisions can feel that judicious and well thought out arguments had been stated, heard, evaluated AND fully considered. Mr Justice Thomas has woefully failed in that area of his job.
A potentially real reason for his silence is that old adage; "Be silent and they can only THINK you a fool but if you open your mouth and utter a fool's views, you can erase all doubt!" Silence never proves anything except an unwillingness to engage.
The WORLD Needs Engagement by All Minds, Especially those making Important Decisions that affect many.
"In the constant Quest for an Honorable World Peace."
A Justice has a need to present ration for his vote in the decisions of the Court so that the People subject to those decisions can feel that judicious and well thought out arguments had been stated, heard, evaluated AND fully considered. Mr Justice Thomas has woefully failed in that area of his job.
A potentially real reason for his silence is that old adage; "Be silent and they can only THINK you a fool but if you open your mouth and utter a fool's views, you can erase all doubt!" Silence never proves anything except an unwillingness to engage.
The WORLD Needs Engagement by All Minds, Especially those making Important Decisions that affect many.
"In the constant Quest for an Honorable World Peace."
1
Thomas nominated by President George HW Bush who knew he needed to replace Marshall and Thomas does what Scalia tells him in voting. Thomas has done two briefs on decisions in 10 years. Thomas and his wife work for the Koch bros as it showed on his taxes. Yes Thomas knew he was put in to do what he is told and the GOP could use him for minority votes as Bush needed. Just think Thomas committed tax fraud by not reporting his extra income which is required by law. Justice Roberts had to order him to correct his tax income or yes the IRS would be changing Thomas and his wife.
9
After the Anita Hill fiasco, along with his response and the revelation of his wife heading up the Washington DC Tea Party group a few years ago, I believe Clarence Thomas to be unfit for the Supreme Court. I don't doubt he has the brain power to be sitting on the highest court in the nation but the perpetual chip he seems to carry on his shoulder and his taciturn ways make him appear as a troubled man whose emotional baggage is very heavy.
19
The chips carried on two shoulders at 1611 Pennsylvania Avenue cast such a shadow in Washington, D.C. that we can't even see Justice Thomas'. At least Thomas loves the United States.
2
That shows that not all the Justices that are on the Supreme Court deserves to be there, Justice Thomas is one of those people that are supposed to be standing guard at the tomb of the unknown soldiers as his job, not at the Supreme Court. His decision to not asksd any question for 10 years does not even make any difference, because his votes are as predictable as knowing the fact that Rush Limbaugh will not vote for Hillary Clinton if she becomes the democratic nominee.
5
"because his votes are as predictable as ...."
Same with Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan. But liberals never moan about their predictability.
Same with Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan. But liberals never moan about their predictability.
My biggest fear as a black person -- being lumped together with people like Clarence Thomas.
13
Why ask any questions when he already decided on how he will deliberate before the hearing based on his closed minded political view. Fairness or what the evidence will show & presented is immaterial at all. Enough said.
2
Give me a break. Many Justices have stated (search YouTube) that their minds are made up before oral argument on virtually every case. All the action happens in the briefs. Or is it only wrong when it's the guy whose worldview you detest does it?
It's wrong no matter what justice does it, but this article was about Clarence Thomas.
1
If his explanation is true, in that he wants to let them argue their cases without interruptions, then I tend to agree with him on that.
1
Bush vs Gore 2000 (corrupted election); Citizens United vs FEC (corporations are people, BIG $$$ bribery); Shelby County vs Holder 2013 (gutting of Voting Rights Act of 1965). Your amoral hands are on these decisions. I won't even go into your dissents. "Justice" Clarence Thomas, you are no Justice Thurgood Marshall, who is turning in his grave. And, to think that this article appears in the NYT on the first day of Black History Month 2016.
2-1-16@9:44 pm et
2-1-16@9:44 pm et
12
Only his amoral hands not his mouth.
Has taken us further south.
Has taken us further south.
NYT: please accept my reply to Usha Srinivasan.
@Usha Srinivasan,
Oh, I remember you and Memi from David Bowie's obituary.
You want to quibble about my comment?
2-2-16@6:00 pm et
@Usha Srinivasan,
Oh, I remember you and Memi from David Bowie's obituary.
You want to quibble about my comment?
2-2-16@6:00 pm et
Good ol' Clarence clearly feels bad about having to file all those amended tax returns and disclosure statements. "Forgot" to declare the $680,000 a few years ago from his wife's income and wrote "none" on all the forms. You know--just like all of the rest of us when we forget about our own $680,000.
Clearly he feels remorse here.
Or something.
Clearly he feels remorse here.
Or something.
14
To me this photo sees man appearing somewhat remorseful, feeling miscast, perhaps too stubborn to ever step down.
He looks unhappy and weary of his fate....one I'd never want..... except for the medical benefits and parking,
He looks unhappy and weary of his fate....one I'd never want..... except for the medical benefits and parking,
3
To me it looks like he's pondering the profound question-- what's for dinner.
2
Here's what bothers me, among other things. The non-questioning for this length of time eliminates one major avenue for learning -- asking, exploring, expanding the presented example, testing limits, probing implications. The advocates won't hit some of the softest spots on their own but quality questioning can. We want students across the educational pipeline to ask questions, to probe situations, to see what happens if you extend an idea. Justice Thomas is not doing justice to the educational process and many folks lose out as a consequence. Sad that he is a sub-optimal role model, whether on not one agrees with his views on cases or about the Constitution.
1
Clarence Thomas is a disgrace to the entire legal profession, and if I ever have the opportunity to meet him in person, I'll say that to him then as well.
5
Wow, judging from the comments I scanned there are a lot of people who just can't get over the confirmation hearings when Justice Thomas was named to the Supreme Court all those years ago.
People! It's over. The man is entitled to his dignity.
You, of course, are entitled to believe the slime job that was done to his reputation. I don't.
I was ambivalent, until my wife and I listened to the audiobook of his memoir, "My Grandfather's Son." Justice Thomas read the book in its entirety. If you believe a man is entitled to justice, read or listen to the book. Then ask yourself how you feel about Clarence Thomas.
We are a better nation because we have Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court.
People! It's over. The man is entitled to his dignity.
You, of course, are entitled to believe the slime job that was done to his reputation. I don't.
I was ambivalent, until my wife and I listened to the audiobook of his memoir, "My Grandfather's Son." Justice Thomas read the book in its entirety. If you believe a man is entitled to justice, read or listen to the book. Then ask yourself how you feel about Clarence Thomas.
We are a better nation because we have Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court.
2
Give Thomas a break - a man should have the right to stay quiet when he has nothing to say or contribute.
3
A comment from Thomas? Ewwwww.. Too little, too late, Justice. You haven't served us nearly as well you have yourself, apparently.
5
Other justices ask enough questions. Frankly I would rather some of them follow Justice Thomas' lead and shut up.
2
Roberts is the most dangerous; Alito is the most partisan; Scalia is the biggest jerk, and worst bigot.
But for pure, stupid ideology, no one on the Supreme Court approaches Clarence Thomas. He doesn't talk because he doesn't think there's anything to talk about.
But for pure, stupid ideology, no one on the Supreme Court approaches Clarence Thomas. He doesn't talk because he doesn't think there's anything to talk about.
13
Kudos to those Democratic Party lawmakers who put racial politics ahead of the good of our nation.
Of course this "minor" fact will never be acknowledged by our liberal friends when there is a GOP villIan like George Bush to constantly put the blame on for this hideous nomination.
Of course this "minor" fact will never be acknowledged by our liberal friends when there is a GOP villIan like George Bush to constantly put the blame on for this hideous nomination.
I think Justice Thomas does not ask questions because he does not feel anyone else in the courtroom is smart enough to properly evaluate his thinking.
1
It was the height of insult to name Justice Thomas to replace the extraordinary Justice Marshall.
Thomas has spent his time on the bench negating the work of Justice Marshall, hurting African-Americans and social justice.
He doesn't ask a question because he doesn't have a clue.
Thomas was part of the majority that gutted the Voting Rights Act - passed in 1965 and extended by Congress overwhelmingly 5 times.
Thomas and Scalia decided that they were in the position to overturn 2 branches of government by concluding racism in America is dead.
They repeated a half-baked theory that Congress was unable to vote against the law as they suffered from "Racial Entitlement."
Scalia overturned the unanimous vote in the Senate by saying:
"I think it is ...very likely attributable to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. It’s been written about. Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes."
You know, that Strict Constructionist view of the Constitution?
The law prevented states with a history of disenfranchising minority voters from doing so.
The states affected immediately passed laws disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of minority voters by making it harder to vote.
These states passed voter ID laws to address something that does't exist - in-person voter fraud.
You think Thomas would have just asked "Why?"
He didn't do more because he couldn't care less.
Thomas has spent his time on the bench negating the work of Justice Marshall, hurting African-Americans and social justice.
He doesn't ask a question because he doesn't have a clue.
Thomas was part of the majority that gutted the Voting Rights Act - passed in 1965 and extended by Congress overwhelmingly 5 times.
Thomas and Scalia decided that they were in the position to overturn 2 branches of government by concluding racism in America is dead.
They repeated a half-baked theory that Congress was unable to vote against the law as they suffered from "Racial Entitlement."
Scalia overturned the unanimous vote in the Senate by saying:
"I think it is ...very likely attributable to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. It’s been written about. Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes."
You know, that Strict Constructionist view of the Constitution?
The law prevented states with a history of disenfranchising minority voters from doing so.
The states affected immediately passed laws disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of minority voters by making it harder to vote.
These states passed voter ID laws to address something that does't exist - in-person voter fraud.
You think Thomas would have just asked "Why?"
He didn't do more because he couldn't care less.
12
Must we always dance around the fact that Thomas is a narrow-minded lightweight who doesn't speak because he has nothing worthwhile to say? His tenure has been a disaster for the Court.
14
I once supported Clarence Thomas for the supreme court--hoping, thinking, believing that his background would provide a lens through which he would help our country navigate its tortuous past to a better future... I have been disappointed not so much that he has proven to be a justice who is far more conservative than I had hoped, but to be so is so certainly no sin; rather it is his reluctance to even open his mouth to discuss the issues themselves. He has opted out of the most important platform this nation has for citing the vagaries of the law--not in the abstract but in the reality of people's lives...folks who look just like him. He is a grand disappointment not because of his conservative bent, but because he didn't have the courage to bring his own mind to the fight. Instead he has relegated himself to sit outside of the Scalia chambers where he, Justice Thomas, waits to take notes, so that he can know what he should later write. That is the great shame of Justice Thomas...the great shame of or nation..
5
I have not read all 958 comments posted so far, so if someone else said this, I apologize, but Clarence Thomas epitomizes the well-worn saying, attributed to either Mark Twain or Abraham Lincoln:
"It is better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."
President Bush should be ashamed to have appointed him to the Supreme Court.
"It is better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."
President Bush should be ashamed to have appointed him to the Supreme Court.
5
I look look at the man and I find myself feeling sorry for him. Is he just plain out of his league,? deeply contemplative? bored?
Is he so burned that he's afraid to ask questions?
Regardless, I feel sorry for Judge Thomas.
Is he so burned that he's afraid to ask questions?
Regardless, I feel sorry for Judge Thomas.
If a Supreme Court justice cannot think of one question to ask in nearly 10 years then he or she in incompetent and needs to be replaced with someone willing and able to do the job. If he is pulling this stunt as retribution he should also be removed. This is the Supreme Court of the U.S., not some County kangaroo court. That the system allows this nonsense is a clear sign that judicial review means nothing at the SCOTUS level.
7
Oh, Clarence, you've enacted your revenge. The next Clinton Presidency will drive you even further into irrelevance. So do us all a favor and just retire and grapple with your personal demons in private, please. Please? Pretty-please? Hmmmmm? Whaddaya say?
Red O. Greene, Albuquerque, NM
Red O. Greene, Albuquerque, NM
6
Forty years arguing cases before state and federal courts of appeal leads me to disagree with Justice Thomas when he says "we should listen . . . and . . . allow the advocates to advocate." If there is anything I have come to dread it is a silent and unresponsive court. I want to know what each judge is thinking. Above all I need to know when a judge is dissatisfied with my argument. Questions from the court are my guide to persuasion.
10
He doesn't want to be persuaded or dissuaded. He knows what he wants. It's what the corporations want or what good old Antonin wants. He is the Manchurian candidate.
1
There is no evidence to suggest that Justice Thomas' accomplishments prior to his appointment, or his work since then, justifies his position. He's simply not qualified.
15
Perhaps Justice Thomas has nothing to say because he has made up his mind before he hears any arguments. that would certainly be true to the nature of his apparently unbending nature. Otherwise, to use the issue that he has speech problems or is self conscious, from a man is his position, is simply self-indulgent. We would hope that a Supreme Court Justice has more emotional maturity than that.
5
Justice Thomas fails to realize that Supreme Court is not the small claim court. Every decision made by him, affect the lives of each American for years to come.
Also, Lawyers are known for their language skills which often used to manipulate opinions - even SC Judges. Say one thing, and mean totally different. It is the therefore, incumbent upon him to ask "What do you mean by that? - please explain". Such that, he understands the arguments, to the best of his / her ability to render just-and-fair judgment.
With his deafening silence, Judge Thomas creates the impression that, he already made up his mind, and he attends only as "courteous" (as himself opined) to the lawyers.
As others had posted. Either he needs to end his "Omerta" and fully participate with those sessions, or retire and let others judges to take his place.
Also, Lawyers are known for their language skills which often used to manipulate opinions - even SC Judges. Say one thing, and mean totally different. It is the therefore, incumbent upon him to ask "What do you mean by that? - please explain". Such that, he understands the arguments, to the best of his / her ability to render just-and-fair judgment.
With his deafening silence, Judge Thomas creates the impression that, he already made up his mind, and he attends only as "courteous" (as himself opined) to the lawyers.
As others had posted. Either he needs to end his "Omerta" and fully participate with those sessions, or retire and let others judges to take his place.
5
Now do an article on the cost to taxpayers of Antonin Scalia's interruptions and bullying. No way does Scalia's persistent, successful efforts to take center stage contribute to intelligent court deliberation.
3
Quite aside from his incurious (and perhaps lazy) silence in oral argument, Clarence Thomas's service on the Supreme Court is questionable with regard to another issue: his wife's lucrative career as a conservative political activist, corporate lobbyist and professional campaign consultant. Mrs Thomas actively recruits conservative political candidates, lines up contributors and packages their campaigns.
Justice Thomas may not participate in her activities, but certainly benefits from her contribution to their household income. He is probably in a conflict of interest, and has been for years. Mrs Thomas openly promotes her "experience and connections" to potential clients on her firm's website. Her primary "connection" is obvious.
There is no objective standard for conflict, real or apparent (both are serious), on the part of a US Supreme Court Justice, and no legal framework for policing or enforcing violations of this nature. As there is no higher legal authority than the Supreme Court, Justices police their own activities and are expected to recuse themselves when they deem it necessary. Citizens must rely on the discretion, honesty and good judgement of the individual Justices - unlike members of Congress, who can be censured and expelled, and the President, who can be impeached.
If the spouse of a liberal Justice had a career as a lobbyist and campaign fundraiser, does anyone doubt that conservatives would raise a stink about it?
Justice Thomas may not participate in her activities, but certainly benefits from her contribution to their household income. He is probably in a conflict of interest, and has been for years. Mrs Thomas openly promotes her "experience and connections" to potential clients on her firm's website. Her primary "connection" is obvious.
There is no objective standard for conflict, real or apparent (both are serious), on the part of a US Supreme Court Justice, and no legal framework for policing or enforcing violations of this nature. As there is no higher legal authority than the Supreme Court, Justices police their own activities and are expected to recuse themselves when they deem it necessary. Citizens must rely on the discretion, honesty and good judgement of the individual Justices - unlike members of Congress, who can be censured and expelled, and the President, who can be impeached.
If the spouse of a liberal Justice had a career as a lobbyist and campaign fundraiser, does anyone doubt that conservatives would raise a stink about it?
15
To think this dour miserable man is in the same seat as the great Justice Thurgood Marshall. I have no respect for Thomas. I have always thought that the cost of being given the seat was to shut up and vote with Scalia to which he has followed almost to perfection..
18
Amen.
2
Justice Clarence Thomas had no trouble speaking up at his confirmation hearings. Nothing particularly taciturn there. I doubt Anita Hill found him terribly shy, self conscious or retiring. But silent though he may be on the bench, his originalist rulings are akin to Scalia's: he cherry picks the framer's centuries-old intent to suit and fit his fixed-in-advance ideological biases. So many of his rulings, like Scalai's, seem reverse engineered. If that's the case, if he already knows the result, asking questions would not just be superfluous, it would also be disingenuous. So he holds his peace. Only to render, in due course, the judgement he has reached in advance. No more need be said.
13
Hasn't he done enough damage to liberal causes by not talking? Why do we want him to ssy any more than he's already 'saying' with his votes?
3
Justice Thomas is one of the worst SCOTUS judges ever.
I voted for Bush #41 in 1988. I did not vote for him in 1992 because of this nomination. It was totally cynical and a complete abdication of Bush's responsibility to this nation. Sen Spector should also be condemned for his actions during the confirmation process.
Thomas doesn't ask questions because he has nothing to say that has any hope of showing any legal knowledge.
So sad!
I voted for Bush #41 in 1988. I did not vote for him in 1992 because of this nomination. It was totally cynical and a complete abdication of Bush's responsibility to this nation. Sen Spector should also be condemned for his actions during the confirmation process.
Thomas doesn't ask questions because he has nothing to say that has any hope of showing any legal knowledge.
So sad!
15
Not just sad. So OUTRAGEOUS!
3
I agree as to the late Sen. Specter. It was so strange and disorienting, watching this onetime Philadelphia liberal (yes, I know he originally was from Kansas) serve as Strom Thurmond's mouthpiece in trashing Anita Hill.
Sen. Specter still is mourned in Philly, but I fail to see what he contributed to our lives, aside from the Thomas confirmation and the Single Bullet Theory.
Change of subject: As much as I think Justice Thomas should not be on the court, though, I am inclined to agree with him in his belief that panels of appellate judges talk too much. That's not a left-right issue, and I think he is correct on it.
Sen. Specter still is mourned in Philly, but I fail to see what he contributed to our lives, aside from the Thomas confirmation and the Single Bullet Theory.
Change of subject: As much as I think Justice Thomas should not be on the court, though, I am inclined to agree with him in his belief that panels of appellate judges talk too much. That's not a left-right issue, and I think he is correct on it.
1
What if all of the Justices felt the way that Justice Thomas did and never asked a question? Would outcomes be different?
3
When the real "you" doesn't measure up to your own idealized self image most people withdraw. I would put him in this category.
In addition, I can think of two reasons. a) Scalia by himself acts as mouth piece for more than the two of them -- so need for Thomas to open his mouth. b) If you are just going to rubber stamp/copy Scalia's decision almost all of the time, then asking any questions would only muddle the process.
In addition, I can think of two reasons. a) Scalia by himself acts as mouth piece for more than the two of them -- so need for Thomas to open his mouth. b) If you are just going to rubber stamp/copy Scalia's decision almost all of the time, then asking any questions would only muddle the process.
7
With 908 comments ahead of mine, I'm sure that no one will ever see this. IMO A.J. Thomas is a bright, if culturally confused soul. It appears that he has a desperate desire to be
While, Mainstream and refuses to embrace his own, distinguished cultural heritage. For all practical purposes, the A.J. is stuck in a ditch and does not know how to climb out. For God's sake sir, in this generation there is absolutely nothing 'wrong' with being an accomplished man, or color or not.
Obviously. Thomas has some unusual views about the law and that too is accepted and respected, apparently by everyone *except* the justice himself. Still a relatively young man, at least among his peers, he's had a reasonable run and perhaps it is time for him to consider a different role. He ought to resign. He contributes little of substance to the law and is in many ways a placeholder without real function. His genuine contributions are few and that has little to do with his lack of bench questions. In the end, he was confirmed based on race (a token replacement for Marshall, and I'm sure that he knows it.) He's probably make a great teacher, but he has no business sitting on the nation's highest court. He is a fish seeking water.
While, Mainstream and refuses to embrace his own, distinguished cultural heritage. For all practical purposes, the A.J. is stuck in a ditch and does not know how to climb out. For God's sake sir, in this generation there is absolutely nothing 'wrong' with being an accomplished man, or color or not.
Obviously. Thomas has some unusual views about the law and that too is accepted and respected, apparently by everyone *except* the justice himself. Still a relatively young man, at least among his peers, he's had a reasonable run and perhaps it is time for him to consider a different role. He ought to resign. He contributes little of substance to the law and is in many ways a placeholder without real function. His genuine contributions are few and that has little to do with his lack of bench questions. In the end, he was confirmed based on race (a token replacement for Marshall, and I'm sure that he knows it.) He's probably make a great teacher, but he has no business sitting on the nation's highest court. He is a fish seeking water.
6
Actually, he's not "accomplished." He was never anything more than a Bush family retainer.
1
Except he gets $$ from his appointment and his wife's connections.
3
he never worked for the Bush family, ever, but thanks for demonstrating your ignorance
The hearings that put Justice Thomas on the bench were remarkable.
The result was astonishing.
Perhaps that experience started the ball rolling for Donald Trump.
The result was astonishing.
Perhaps that experience started the ball rolling for Donald Trump.
3
why bother asking questions when your mind is already made up.
5
Yes, I believe Justice Thomas. Of course, I believe you don't speak from the bench because you're trying to give the advocate a full hearing. I also believe that when Von Miller, the defensive lineman for the Denver Broncos, breaks through and jumps on a quarterback, he's trying to protect him from the sun.
9
A man his age should surely be past embarrassment over his southern accent.
I think that he's either afraid of sounding stupid (content not accent) or he's just lazy.
I think that he's either afraid of sounding stupid (content not accent) or he's just lazy.
7
why does he need to ask any questions when the other justices are doing enough of it!!?
i get the feeling part of it is simply a show, especially with Scalia. it's not like Thomas wants no questions, is it? note the "that many". he wants questions, just not that many!!
“I think it’s unnecessary in deciding cases to ask that many questions, and I don’t think it’s helpful,”
i get the feeling part of it is simply a show, especially with Scalia. it's not like Thomas wants no questions, is it? note the "that many". he wants questions, just not that many!!
“I think it’s unnecessary in deciding cases to ask that many questions, and I don’t think it’s helpful,”
This is not in defense of Clarence Thomas, but I have had a few occasions to go to oral arguments at the Supreme Court and I cringed for the lawyers who were trying to present their cases and were interrupted by the justices. First off, it is clear that appearing before the Court is a very big deal, perhaps the biggest deal many lawyers will ever experience. Second, they have assiduously prepared for this big moment and the time allotted is strictly controlled. So, they get wound up offering their positions and suddenly they are interrupted. Talk about throwing someone off of their game.
I can only imagine who an attorney might recover. The question usually pops up not in the direct line of argument, but as something else about a case that has created interest on the part of the Justice. Generally, the logical construction of the argument is thereby shattered, especially if the Justice appears to be hostile to the side being presented. The lawyers recover as best they can.
As for Clarence Thomas, it is generally understood that, at minimum, he is a rare bird indeed. He seems possessed of some inner anger fed by unending resentment that no other human can fully grasp and that he might not clearly understand himself. He was elevated to the Court very young without the kind of distinguished record that would have clearly merited his appointment. He seems to be bent on being different, even odd, for its own sake as a kind of revenge against the world.
I can only imagine who an attorney might recover. The question usually pops up not in the direct line of argument, but as something else about a case that has created interest on the part of the Justice. Generally, the logical construction of the argument is thereby shattered, especially if the Justice appears to be hostile to the side being presented. The lawyers recover as best they can.
As for Clarence Thomas, it is generally understood that, at minimum, he is a rare bird indeed. He seems possessed of some inner anger fed by unending resentment that no other human can fully grasp and that he might not clearly understand himself. He was elevated to the Court very young without the kind of distinguished record that would have clearly merited his appointment. He seems to be bent on being different, even odd, for its own sake as a kind of revenge against the world.
10
Thomas is an abomination as a supreme court justice. Lazy, lazy, lazy. He doesn't engage and is a horrifying example of what a mess the country would be in if all the justices behaved as he does. He takes his money, fills a place and doesn't work.
11
Correct.
2
Thomas's confirmation was voted on in the Senate. He won the nomination with 52-48 in votes. The senate was made up of 58 democrats and 42 republicans. you do the math on how this came about.
2
Justice Thomas is an introvert. He has admitted it himself. In fact, he has thanked author Susan Cain, who published a book titled "Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking," for constructing the medium through which he has come to understand himself. He may have voiced other concerns pertaining to his decade-old silence on the Supreme Court bench, but it is possible he has not learned to become an effective "self-regulator," a person Cain explains, has mastered skills which soothe unpleasant "emotions and behaviors." I find this a more plausible explanation for his silence.
How and why Clarence Thomas ever got nominated, and then confirmed despite all the evidence of his misogyny is for George H W Bush, and his chaperone through the confirmation hearings to answer. He does attend all the Koch Brothers annual meetings on invitation along with Mr. Scalia as reported in the press--which says a lot. Is this not a waste of a seat on the court--may as well be empty, whose vote is exactly the same as that of Scalia?
6
When your mind is made up, nothing else is relevant.
4
He has clerks to do all his legal work. and as far as he's concerned his position on the highest court of the land is simply a springboard to codify his extreme conservative views. Of course, he and his wife and richly rewarded for this by the oligarchs he empowers. Clarence Thomas is a profoundly lazy and corrupt individual.
12
There is no reason the court can't be as politicized and worthless as the other branches of government. Just elect them to a six year term with no term limits.
3
Unless HRC can carry both houses of Congress (and what with the gerrymanding that has ridden across the country like a plague and frozen incumbencies in place), this coming election is really only about eventual appointments to the Supreme Court.
7
Three potential SCOTUS appointments is reason enough to vote for Hillary Clinton, though she was certainly robbed in 2008 by the DNC tossing her under the wheels of the bus.
When I was young, I remember hearing about the then nominee for Supreme Court Justice, Clarance Thomas. Like I said I was young I clearly recall hearing talk of a "pubic hair" and a can of coca-cola. That was a long time ago... in a galaxy far far away ... However, I wonder how many people still think of Justice Thomas and the wayward hair in the cola can? Since we don't hear from him very often - the image still sticks for me. I somehow think, I may not be alone. I would like to replace that image with something... Lord, any other image.
4
Plato knew the value of asking questions in attempting to arrive at truth. He passed his dialectic method on to us; the American trial system is based upon it.
Why would SCOTUS take the bench if they could simply decide the case on papers? For show? Perhaps. But minds can be and have been changed due to questions asked and answers given. Justice Thomas, and we, lose out by his refusal to engage in the process.
Why would SCOTUS take the bench if they could simply decide the case on papers? For show? Perhaps. But minds can be and have been changed due to questions asked and answers given. Justice Thomas, and we, lose out by his refusal to engage in the process.
7
His paychecks clear. What else might he be concerned about? #AnitaHill
8
I don't know what the current explanation is, and don't mean that the current one is not the right one as it may have matured over time, but I can tell you what Justice Thomas told me, and others, on a visit to my alma mater. He said that it was a waste of time because the other justices had already made up their mind. I remember asking specifically about Justice Stevens and a quote I remembered from a recent case, and the reply was that Justice Stevens had always made up his mind.
I suspect that the thunderous contempt within which Justice Thomas is held has much in common with the fall from grace of another prominent African American. Justice Thomas and Bill Cosby have publicly expressed views inconsistent with what is currently called liberalism. Current liberalism calls for personal attacks, vilification, and lawsuits where the judicial privilege can be pressed into service to immunize otherwise defamatory remarks.
Justice Thomas does not have to ask questions, nor does he have to answer them, save as he chooses to do so in appropriate fora. He has life tenure and one would suspect he is busily creating a legacy of his own -- his opinions, his decisions, his own view of jurisprudence.
Justice Thomas does not have to ask questions, nor does he have to answer them, save as he chooses to do so in appropriate fora. He has life tenure and one would suspect he is busily creating a legacy of his own -- his opinions, his decisions, his own view of jurisprudence.
He is above doing his job?
2
It is well known that Thomas does his best work in private with the other judges. In the years that he has been on the court, he has brought a number of them around to his way of thinking, and now he is much more likely to get a majority to concur with his opinions. He is now second only to Roberts in the amount of influence he has in the direction of the court.
His appointment was a mistake and nothing he has done on the Court proves otherwise.
23
Why should he ask anything or say anything? He's gotten tenure for life. So why bother !!
11
Mr. Justice Thomas' silence *might* be acceptable were he a legal scholar of any substance writing opinions that advance our jurisprudence. Instead, he is universally regarded as the intellectual lightweight on the SCOTUS who hides behind the better legal minds of his law clerks.
He is an embarrassment to the work of the Court and to the American people as he sleeps his way through oral arguments, knowing that he will vote as Justice Scalia does. On top of it all, he is a follower without providing us with any substantive justification for his knee-jerk right-wing opinions.
He is the poster child for term limits on the SCOTUS and it's high time he removed himself from the important business of the Court so he can do no further harm. There's work to be done, Mr. Justice, and you are not doing it.
He is an embarrassment to the work of the Court and to the American people as he sleeps his way through oral arguments, knowing that he will vote as Justice Scalia does. On top of it all, he is a follower without providing us with any substantive justification for his knee-jerk right-wing opinions.
He is the poster child for term limits on the SCOTUS and it's high time he removed himself from the important business of the Court so he can do no further harm. There's work to be done, Mr. Justice, and you are not doing it.
26
Which would be fine save that he gets more money while on the SCOTUS. The $$ would end very soon without his day job.
1
Okay, to those here who are rabidly defending Justice Thomas let me ask you one question. Is there any other single lawyer you have ever heard of in your lifetime or throughout all of history who did not ask a single question in court in ten years? Ten years?? Of course, there is the old adage: better to leave your mouth closed and be thought an idiot than open it and have that confirmed.
17
Term limits should go into effect for a maximum of ten years. Thomas is not qualified and is not competent to be a Supreme Court Justice. Ten years is long enough already.
10
As I recall, the American Bar Association said he was unqualified to be a Supreme Court Justice.
6
The Bush v Gore decision in 2000 has wounded the Court's credibility for a generation. I recall reading that Sandra Day O'Connor said, at an election night party, when told Al Gore was winning, "this is terrible." Apparently, she later recognized what that decision had done to the Court. Now we have the Justices regaling the crowd with examples of their weird humor, lack of knowledge of what goes on with the average American's life, traveling the country to give speeches on their views of the world. My view is they should stay put, do their work, and not engage in a stream of consciousness, which Scalia apparently thinks is necessary. That said, there is a happy medium between the stream of consciousness approach and absolute silence for ten years. I think many will be happy to see Clarence Thomas on his way, retirement or otherwise.
6
The Socratic method--in part, reasoned oral argument--is embedded in the legal system. By ignoring this process, an important tool in reaching a rational decision is absent from Justice Thomas' decision making ability.
10
He needs to go and retire already. The man is a disgrace IMO. Appointed by a republican, fyi... This is why young people and people of all ages need to vote!
The next president may appoint 2-3 SCOTUS judges and they need to be Moderates. Notice I didn't say Liberals, as one, we need a centrist court IMO.
The next president may appoint 2-3 SCOTUS judges and they need to be Moderates. Notice I didn't say Liberals, as one, we need a centrist court IMO.
14
I get the feeling that oral arguments are nothing more than political theater. I'd probably want to snub my nose at it too.
3
Perhaps the Koch Brothers will find something for the brusque, enigmatic Judge Thomas in Wichita.
6
Justice Thomas' career & expertise did NOT merit his appointment. Both he & we know it! He was a Bush 'pawn'---black Repub---willing to "sell out" 'for whatever reason'. The idea that he could fill Justice Marshall's seat is an affront to ANY parent, asking that their child be judged 'on merit'! I knew of his stint @ EEOC, under a Repub Administration, where he would have discrimination cases "slow walked" to preclude adverse decisions. He was 'rewarded'!!!
And Anita Hill was accurate in her charges!! [The D.C. "Black Community" heard the "drums" for years!! What a President can do!!]
And Anita Hill was accurate in her charges!! [The D.C. "Black Community" heard the "drums" for years!! What a President can do!!]
14
Justices should be judged on two things only: the quality of their written opinions and their general demeanor, the latter reflecting on the degree to which the American public grants legitimacy to judicial review, an unusual and tenuous power in a democracy.
2
The man does not have to ask questions. His decisions are already written beforehand and they are always the same, whatever the case or facts. He is a de facto Republican politician sitting on the Court. Nothing much to add. He is an open book.
14
10 years without asking at least a "clarifying" question? I'm not a lawyer ... or would ever want to be one ... but I have heard and read some arguments before the Supreme Court. For the most it doesn't take a legal scholar to understand many of their arguments. Much of what is discussed is discussed in terms that are quite accessible to non-lawyers. But there are times when the arguments the lawyers make have some obvious logical flaws or lack clarity. I can't believe that Justice Thomas hasn't asked a question along those lines.
So for me, Justice Thomas' explanation doesn't hold water, doesn't pass muster, etc. Ipso facto we are required to ask ... what IS he doing on the Supreme Court?
So for me, Justice Thomas' explanation doesn't hold water, doesn't pass muster, etc. Ipso facto we are required to ask ... what IS he doing on the Supreme Court?
14
I remember President Bush saying with a straight face, that Justice Thomas was the most qualified to be a Supreme Justice. It thought it then a ridiculous statement. As it turned out, it turned out I was right, and a valuable seat on the Court was wasted to satisfy the Republic right wing. What a hypocrite, the man who would have never been heard of were it not for affirmative action, now rails against it.
29
Just from looking at the picture? I see a man, who is emotionally burned out, and just tired of all the insanity of this Nation.
2
No, he is just falling asleep because he has little interest in the proceedings.
5
Insanity he helped create.
2
Can you agree at least that the man is burned out? You say that he has little interest in proceedings, even though that is his job? A person, who acts that way is cutting themselves off from what is their duty.
His rationale: “I think we should listen to lawyers who are arguing their cases.." would be somewhat credible if there was even ONE instance he could cite where lawyers' arguments eg., voting rights, marriage rights, health care, police misconduct, death penalty , affirmative action, civil liberties, presidential powers...resulted in him abandoning or moderating his extremist right wing convictions.
An appalling nomination by Bush41, then Roberts, Alito Bush43. With a dysfunctional Congress, SCOTUS is now making most of the big decisions. That's why there's reason to be scared about the outcome of the November 2016 election!
An appalling nomination by Bush41, then Roberts, Alito Bush43. With a dysfunctional Congress, SCOTUS is now making most of the big decisions. That's why there's reason to be scared about the outcome of the November 2016 election!
19
I think Thomas might like add something like "Can't we all just go back to a pre-1861 world where things were all howdy-doody and hunky-dory. Thomas "envision[s] an America free from equality protections, environmental regulation, prohibitions on cruel and unusual punishment, and pretty much anything else you might have thought the courts had accomplished since the invention of the radio." http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/oct/13/clarence...
14
Judging by most comments here, Justice Thomas has only one flaw, based on which all manner of ignominy is being unfairly heaped upon him: he is unreliably black.
How dare he, a conservative, usurp the one “black” seat? How dare he not conform to the “black” racist stereotype?
The comments on this board say a thousand times more about their (mostly white) authors, and their hidden racism, than about Clarence Thomas.
It’s like liberals want their money back.
How dare he, a conservative, usurp the one “black” seat? How dare he not conform to the “black” racist stereotype?
The comments on this board say a thousand times more about their (mostly white) authors, and their hidden racism, than about Clarence Thomas.
It’s like liberals want their money back.
6
Nice try. Thomas' flaw is that he's reliably incompetent, incurious, and wildly partisan.
12
Er...liberals didn't 'spend' any money for Clarence Thomas, the GOP did. And even if liberals had, they wouldn't "want [it] back", they'd just want the job they hired him for. And last I checked, the capacity (or desire) to speak isn't determined by the color of one's skin. Nor vice versa. Your comment reveals more about you, John, than about Justice Thomas OR the comments section.
6
Read the book "Strange Justice" by two reporters, and then tell me how he rates being on our highest court He's a fraud and a liar.
5
Clearance Thomas seems unqualified to be a Supreme Court justice. His appointment is consistent with the Republicans predilection to nominate people of questionable competence to high positions, e.g., Dan Quayle, Michael Brown, George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, etc,
23
He has no questions because his opinions are decided by idealogy and not law.
20
So asking lawyers a question (or two) is "peppering" them? What a lot of self-serving nonsense. What Thomas is truly concerned about is that he will show himself to be shallow and biased - but we already knew that.
21
Thomas was raised by his grandparents, in Savannah, Georgia. He was the benefactor of government programs that enabled him to attend Holy Cross and Yale Law. Yet, for his entire professional life, Thomas has fought through his work at the EOC and from the bench to destroy the same government programs that gave him his ascent into public life.
Now firmly secure on the bench, journalists and news reporters have mocked Thomas’ indifference during oral arguments or stupefied looks during the Courts' sessions.
His presence, since 1991, on the Court has been a sad experience as the replacement of the great Thurgood Marshall.
Now firmly secure on the bench, journalists and news reporters have mocked Thomas’ indifference during oral arguments or stupefied looks during the Courts' sessions.
His presence, since 1991, on the Court has been a sad experience as the replacement of the great Thurgood Marshall.
25
Beneficiary - jeez
2
He's keeping it warm for a future Justice Obama, who will once again return Thurgood's seat into one of intellectual application and considered justice.
6
Someone to listen, specially when making judgement is to very appealing. Besides, oral arguments are just a dramatization of the fact written on paper, where really is, where an arguments resides.
1
Clarence Thomas is a crooked man and a crooked judge who's wife was being paid off by the health-care lobby and the Koch brothers.
28
Asking questions is discourteous? I have personally observed Justice Thomas whispering and chuckling with his pal during oral argument. That's what I call rude.
25
With life tenure Thomas owes no one a single syllable. His written work defines his tragically warped view of American jurisprudence and his overt anti-social psychosis.
18
What a disaster this guy's been, another legacy of the Bush Family Dynasty. And to imagine that he replaced Thurgood Marshall whose victory in Brown v. Board of Education desegregated public schools!
Using Bush I logic, it's possible that President Trump may choose to appoint Sarah Palin or Ann Coulter to bring more gender balance to the court.
Using Bush I logic, it's possible that President Trump may choose to appoint Sarah Palin or Ann Coulter to bring more gender balance to the court.
23
Justice Thomas has been a total waste on the Court. He doesn't ask questions and rarely writes an opinion. I wonder how many cases he has his mind made up before he even hears the arguments.
14
I have always thought Clarence Thomas is a bright man. However, he is surrounded by brilliant people who are also very articulate. I think they intimidate him. I think most of us would feel the same way. There is nothing wrong with that. I feel sorry for the baggage he carries about his speech and race.
8
It has been a long time since Anita Hill; but the two questions that have dogged Clarence Thomas since that dreadful nomination process are still there. Was/is he morally fit to sit on the court and did/does the inexperienced, 42-year old recipient of a highly politicized nomination have the requisite grey matter to merit the appointment. We will probably never have an answer to the first question. As to the second, there are many leaders who have grown into and merited mantles perhaps not entirely deserved when bestowed/awarded. It behooved Justice Thomas to care enough to prove that he deserved the job he accepted and still gets paid for. Opening his mouth could go a long way towards establishing this proof...or not. For me the two questions continue to be related: Demonstrated merit would have gone a long way towards absolving Justice Thomas (if he indeed needs absolution) for the Anita Hill debacle. Instead, however, I am left with the lingering worry that we are now (as then) being defrauded.
12
There were several other women who actually wanted to testify as to Clarence Thomas sexually harassing them in the workplace, but Joe Biden refused to let them testify in the committee hearing. Whereas, Prof. Anita Hill did not want to testify abut had to because Biden subpoenaed her. The whole circus was a sham.
2
I had the pleasure of seeing Justice Thomas give a lecture at a local Univerity. I was totally surprised as to how bright and perceptive he was . I totally changed my perception on him based on the media hype about his incompetence. He is very real and very grounded. I do not always agree with his rulings...but he deserves his place on the Supreme Court. I have come to respect his thoughtful quiet approach!
9
I am disturbed and revolted by the comments denigrating this strong, brilliant man. Justice Clarence Thomas is a true American treasure, and all slandering his name on these comments are not fit to shine his shoes.
7
The Dave is not happy? If comments are say improper, the moderator will not publish. So, stop crying.
4
So it doesn't bother you that, absent the very governmental programs that he rails against -- and has spent his career denying to those coming up behind him -- that brilliant mind of his (no snark; I'm convinced you're right on this) might very well have been wasted on shining shoes for a living?
3
He is a distasteful, untrustworthy individual who is ashamed of his race, his heritage and himself.
1
Justice Thomas appears to be doing his utmost to silence the African-American voice in the US Supreme Court. Could this have been the deal that Thomas made with conservatives in order to be a Supreme Court Justice? Could his silence be a demonstration of the most passive-aggressive judicial behavior imaginable?
13
While I agree that speaking at oral arguments would give the public the opportunity to see and hear him debate other justices, it is incredibly strange that so many people take his silence as proof that he is not thinking at all, or hiding his incompetence, or just displaying his arrogance. Criticize his opinions all you want, but leave out the presumptuous psychoanalysis.
Oral arguments are not classroom discussions, lawyers are not teachers, and justices are not students seeking to enrich their intellectual lives. Questions are often used by both liberal and conservative justices to assert preconceived ideas, the opposite of intellectual open-mindedness. The justices are often just refining their own arguments rather than trying to get a better understanding of the argument being presented. There's no inherent reason why a justice needs to engage in that kind of debate.
One can argue that justices have a responsibility to the public to debate during oral arguments, much the way members of congress are expected to debate legislation, and in that sense questions are useful to the overall legal and political process. But that's a very different argument than presuming he's a fool because he didn't ask any questions.
Numerous comments glibly quote Twain's line that it's better be keep you mouth shut and have people think you're a fool than open it and remove all doubt. To be just as glib, it's better to keep your mouth shut than be the fool who can't shut up.
Oral arguments are not classroom discussions, lawyers are not teachers, and justices are not students seeking to enrich their intellectual lives. Questions are often used by both liberal and conservative justices to assert preconceived ideas, the opposite of intellectual open-mindedness. The justices are often just refining their own arguments rather than trying to get a better understanding of the argument being presented. There's no inherent reason why a justice needs to engage in that kind of debate.
One can argue that justices have a responsibility to the public to debate during oral arguments, much the way members of congress are expected to debate legislation, and in that sense questions are useful to the overall legal and political process. But that's a very different argument than presuming he's a fool because he didn't ask any questions.
Numerous comments glibly quote Twain's line that it's better be keep you mouth shut and have people think you're a fool than open it and remove all doubt. To be just as glib, it's better to keep your mouth shut than be the fool who can't shut up.
7
se:
As to your quoting of Twain might I suggest that there is a middle ground? For this man to sit on the highest court in the land and for 10 years not as any question that might illuminate a point, rebuke a disrespect, or help enlighten us all about a point of law (of which he is supposedly SUPREME) is not right. It sure wouldn't make him "glib."
As to your quoting of Twain might I suggest that there is a middle ground? For this man to sit on the highest court in the land and for 10 years not as any question that might illuminate a point, rebuke a disrespect, or help enlighten us all about a point of law (of which he is supposedly SUPREME) is not right. It sure wouldn't make him "glib."
3
“I think it’s unnecessary in deciding cases to ask that many questions, and I don’t think it’s helpful. . . "
An absurd statement. The Supreme Court is the highest court of appeal in the US. Its purpose is quite different from lower courts. It exists to decide the most intractable constitutional disputes and questions. Oral argument is a vital part of this process, and the Justices have always taken an active part in debate. A vital part of their job is to probe and question the positions of the lawyers who appear before them.
Thomas was nominated to the Court to replace Thurgood Marshall because he was black, a loyal Republican, and a federal judge. In his latter capacity, his record was scant - he had written almost no opinions and had produced no legal scholarship to speak of. His work as a lawyer was not particularly distinguished. His very lack of achievement, other than his service as a bureaucrat in the Reagan administration, contrarily made him easy to confirm. The contrast in experience and qualifications between Thomas and more recent appointees such as Kagan and Sotomayor is glaring.
He has had an easy time of it on the Court, for all the criticism of his silence. His wife's lucrative and highly partisan political activities have arguably put him in a conflict of interest. There is no process in place to address this conflict, other than inadequate, informal self-policing.
An absurd statement. The Supreme Court is the highest court of appeal in the US. Its purpose is quite different from lower courts. It exists to decide the most intractable constitutional disputes and questions. Oral argument is a vital part of this process, and the Justices have always taken an active part in debate. A vital part of their job is to probe and question the positions of the lawyers who appear before them.
Thomas was nominated to the Court to replace Thurgood Marshall because he was black, a loyal Republican, and a federal judge. In his latter capacity, his record was scant - he had written almost no opinions and had produced no legal scholarship to speak of. His work as a lawyer was not particularly distinguished. His very lack of achievement, other than his service as a bureaucrat in the Reagan administration, contrarily made him easy to confirm. The contrast in experience and qualifications between Thomas and more recent appointees such as Kagan and Sotomayor is glaring.
He has had an easy time of it on the Court, for all the criticism of his silence. His wife's lucrative and highly partisan political activities have arguably put him in a conflict of interest. There is no process in place to address this conflict, other than inadequate, informal self-policing.
17
Clarence Thomas is an embarrassment and a disgrace to the Supreme Court's proud tradition of rigorous and well reasoned litigation. He was supposed to be the official replacement for Thurgood Marshall, a justice with true stature and integrity, a justice who made history in a very positive way. He now seems to be merely warming a seat that awaits a new and engaged justice. It's not just that Thomas doesn't ask questions. It's that he invariably sides time and again with the rancid Tony Scalia, which makes his lack of curiosity and engagement all the more onerous. This indicates to me intellectual and moral sloth. It is disheartening to see a man in such an important historical position wasting the power and influence of his standing.
Thurgood Marshall would be appalled.
Thurgood Marshall would be appalled.
20
Justice Clarence Thomas is an embarrassment to his race, gender and profession.
14
A college student or undergraduate university student who never asks questions or never participates in class discussions often faces some decrease in final grade for her/his lack of participation. After all, if s/he cannot show some intellectual spark amongst her/his peers, then this student's intellectual fire is worthy of question. A Supreme Court justice who cannot think of a question in the space of ten years has beyond flunked out. Such a justice is unworthy of her/his position, whether the intellectual inertia results from resentment, lack of intellectual capacity, racial injury or whatever.
20
How this guy made it to the Supreme Court is beyond me. He abuses Anita Hill in the work place, gets out of that smelling like roses, and then lands on the Supreme Court? How corrupt is that? He has no scruples. It's disturbing.
14
The public judges Supreme Court justices based on whether they approve of their opinions. Legal scholars judge them based on the quality of their jurisprudence. Whether they ask questions at oral argument is about style, not substance. Do you like Justice Kagan's hair? Do you like Justice Roberts's voice? Should Justices Ginsberg and Scalia be so friendly? And should Justice Thomas ask questions? These are good questions for gossip columnists. Not so much for the New York Times.
2
Same pattern for decades. He sits there, whatever way scalia votes, whatever he says or writes, thomas concurs. Collect check. Repeat.
14
It is impossible to assign a basis of intelligence or brilliance to whether a Supreme Court justice talks a lot or not at all during oral arguments. Consider Scalia's versus Thomas's verbosity.
2
Mr. "Is that a pubic hair on your Coke?" is a disgrace to the entire court system and we can thank Poppy Bush for appointing him to the highest court in the land. Anita Hill was wronged, as were the American people .
11
In my classroom experience, there are at least 3 reasons why students don't ask questions. 1. They don't understand the material. 2. They are afraid to ask a dumb question. 3. They are disinterested. For those that ask questions, these reasons do not come into play.
9
Regardless of whether you agree with his philosophy, one terrific thing about Thomas is that he has a consistently coherent philosophy to which he adheres in every case. There are clear examples of virtually every other Justice resorting to a different approach or rational when necessary to reach their desired result. Nothing is more illegitimate than a Justice manufacturing a rationale, particularly in Constitutional cases, to reach the desired "equitable" result. Justices such as Douglas, Brennan and Marshall did if for decades to manufacture new rights. Conservatives have done so more recently in flagrantly incorrect decisions like Heller and Citizens United.
4
There was no jurist on the Court with as light a resume as Clarence Thomas at the time of his appointment. In the ten years since his appointment there has not been a single nominee for this position on the Court that came with as little experience or background as Mr. Thomas. President H.W. Bush appointed him as the token black to take the place of the distinguished Thurgood Marshall. How ironic that he has been the ultimate "affirmative action" appointment that conservatives rail about: unqualified for the job but given the appointment because of his race, ahead of more qualified candidates.
9
Justice Thomas' explanation for his silence presumes that ALL the questions are answered by the briefs. This almost NEVER is true. Some advocates are at their best when being questioned. Appeals cases almost never end up being about the issue at trial that lawyers thought it would be.
As for the comments from UN; glad that a Nobel prize winner thinks your papers were brilliant, but if you continue to think you know all the answers I would only refer you to Albert Einstein: "The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits."
As for the comments from UN; glad that a Nobel prize winner thinks your papers were brilliant, but if you continue to think you know all the answers I would only refer you to Albert Einstein: "The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits."
8
Every time he takes a seat on the bench, Anita Hill stands taller and taller.
11
Justice Thomas is the best argument to never appoint people to a federal position for life. If anyone can be deemed a 'welfare queen," he could be -- in the sense we the people are providing his living with no return on our investment.
23
It's amazing how racist some people can be when talking about conservatives of color.
5
Dave is right[wing], of course.
"Playing the race card" is something only card-carrying conservatives are permitted.
Say -- isn't "Justice" Thomas a conservative?
Why, that must be why it was okay for him to decry a supposed "high-tech lynching" when one -- as it later turned out, one of many -- of his former underlings (as it were) went public with tales of behaviors that clearly demonstrated his unsuitability for the positions both that he'd previously held, and would soon be holding.
Behaviors that, needless to say, if engaged in by any Democrat or liberal, would have conservatives howling at the moon in righteous rage...
"Playing the race card" is something only card-carrying conservatives are permitted.
Say -- isn't "Justice" Thomas a conservative?
Why, that must be why it was okay for him to decry a supposed "high-tech lynching" when one -- as it later turned out, one of many -- of his former underlings (as it were) went public with tales of behaviors that clearly demonstrated his unsuitability for the positions both that he'd previously held, and would soon be holding.
Behaviors that, needless to say, if engaged in by any Democrat or liberal, would have conservatives howling at the moon in righteous rage...
3
Wrong Dave. Justice Thomas is a person of weak character.
2
I do not think that it is fair to criticize Justice Thomas for his reluctance to ask questions. Every judge has the right to decide for himself or herself how best to go about deciding cases and, in any case, oral argument rarely makes much of a difference in convincing any judge about the merits of a dispute.
Besides, it's not really a good thing that justices "debate" each other in open court via questions. They should, instead, have real conversations in conference and speak to each other about the case, as they clearly have the power and right to do, and work to reach consensus instead of doing the "nine separate law firms" model they use.
Besides, it's not really a good thing that justices "debate" each other in open court via questions. They should, instead, have real conversations in conference and speak to each other about the case, as they clearly have the power and right to do, and work to reach consensus instead of doing the "nine separate law firms" model they use.
3
Am with Clarence and Donald on this. Oral arguments, voicemail, full-body meetings, Fox presidential debates, chatty personable NYC cab drivers, all 90s stuff, passé, complete waste of time. Just send the MP4s, he'll listen to them on the way home with his favorite pair of cans.
4
I'm grateful he keeps his mouth shut.
12
At this point, who cares. He's got another 10+ years or so on the court. He's an ideologue, who got on the court by the skin of his teeth, so we have to live with it.
No decision is more important for a U.S. Senator as their vote for Supreme Court Justice. 11 Democrats voted for Thomas and we got 25 years of this monstrosity and probably another 10 left to go.
No decision is more important for a U.S. Senator as their vote for Supreme Court Justice. 11 Democrats voted for Thomas and we got 25 years of this monstrosity and probably another 10 left to go.
21
A successful black upholder of the law who supports conservative principles. Makes your average NYT liberal reader's head explode.
If he was a liberal, and anybody spoke a word against him, the the commentators would simply call racism and stop talking. Since he is conservative, gotta find other ways to smear him I suppose.
Which is why we are given an article about his style, without a speck of critique on substance.
He respects the constitution and upholds it. He destroys the race card just be being there. Liberals despise him.
If he was a liberal, and anybody spoke a word against him, the the commentators would simply call racism and stop talking. Since he is conservative, gotta find other ways to smear him I suppose.
Which is why we are given an article about his style, without a speck of critique on substance.
He respects the constitution and upholds it. He destroys the race card just be being there. Liberals despise him.
7
Let's ask Anita Hill if Thomas knows the meaning of respect. Or sexual harassment. Or women's rights. Stop praising a guy whose performance would get him fired anywhere else.
9
Anita Hill lied. The original astroturf. Even if she told the truth, Thomas' digressions are a mere drop of water compared to the oceans of Bill Clintons digressions.
1
Larry Gr, your device's autofill appears to have disserved you.
You were clearly typing "transgressions."
(Not sure what you were typing for "astroturf," though, which has no conceivable relationship to Anita Hill, honest or otherwise. Anita Hill never pretended to be a "grassroots" group.)
That aside, I'm afraid your claim (and that of others) that "Anita lied" is no longer even remotely plausible, let alone seriously tenable.
As we later learned, numerous other women had similar stories to tell, and were prevented from telling them, at least in part, by Joe Biden (thanks, Joe!).
If there was any conspiracy of deceit, it obviously favored Thomas.
And, in 2010, we received yet further corroboration from a former girlfriend of the "Justice," herself now a retired administrative judge, who finally broke her silence, impelled by the obscenity of Ginnie Thomas calling now-Prof Hill to press her for an apology(!).
Just two among many, many sources:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/21/AR201010...
http://www.salon.com/2010/10/27/anita_hill_clarence_thomas/
You were clearly typing "transgressions."
(Not sure what you were typing for "astroturf," though, which has no conceivable relationship to Anita Hill, honest or otherwise. Anita Hill never pretended to be a "grassroots" group.)
That aside, I'm afraid your claim (and that of others) that "Anita lied" is no longer even remotely plausible, let alone seriously tenable.
As we later learned, numerous other women had similar stories to tell, and were prevented from telling them, at least in part, by Joe Biden (thanks, Joe!).
If there was any conspiracy of deceit, it obviously favored Thomas.
And, in 2010, we received yet further corroboration from a former girlfriend of the "Justice," herself now a retired administrative judge, who finally broke her silence, impelled by the obscenity of Ginnie Thomas calling now-Prof Hill to press her for an apology(!).
Just two among many, many sources:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/21/AR201010...
http://www.salon.com/2010/10/27/anita_hill_clarence_thomas/
2
One of the worst justices of all time.
23
When a Supreme Court Justice has not asked one single question in a decade, it shows that he has the very opposite of a curious mind.
21
He brings a certain dignity to the Supreme Legislators of the land.
2
"He brings a certain dignity"
Really....
I suggest you ask Anita Hill about that!
Really....
I suggest you ask Anita Hill about that!
12
`Is There Anything Clarence Thomas Would Like to Ask?'
What am I doing here?
What am I doing here?
20
Oral arguments should be more like congressional committee hearings. The lawyers should get a short period at the beginning to state their case. Then each justice should have a time to ask questions individually, instead of interrupting the lawyers or each other throughout.
4
The only question I'd like to ask is whether George Bush senior ever asks himself why he wasted this most important appointment on someone so obviously ill suited to the job.
13
Being a Bush means you are never, ever sorry for anything. Ever.
A Supreme Court justice's refusal to ask questions is akin to a physician's refusal to palpate patients; legals briefs, like lab results, tell you only so much. Justice Thomas: Perhaps you should put your finger on the pulse from time to time.
9
My immediate reaction to the article is that Mr. Justass Thomas does not ask questions because he has already made up his mind as to how he will rule. Now, let's see if we can divine the truth of that:
He is friendly to business.
He is unfriendly to those accused of violent crime.
He is friendly to those accused of financial or white collar crime.
Corporations are people.
Votes only count if they are Republican votes.
Civil liberties of any kind are for him, business and rich people only.
Pollution is not a problem since he doesn't live in the neighborhood.
Women are second class citizens.
And more in that ilk.
If there is a way that this justass can put the shiv in on the common man or woman...he's voting that way...even if he's all by himself.
He is friendly to business.
He is unfriendly to those accused of violent crime.
He is friendly to those accused of financial or white collar crime.
Corporations are people.
Votes only count if they are Republican votes.
Civil liberties of any kind are for him, business and rich people only.
Pollution is not a problem since he doesn't live in the neighborhood.
Women are second class citizens.
And more in that ilk.
If there is a way that this justass can put the shiv in on the common man or woman...he's voting that way...even if he's all by himself.
8
A question requires a thought. A puppet only requires a master.
12
Useless boat anchor. PLEASE RETIRE THIS YEAR.
8
As a seasoned criminal lawyer, I am very familiar with what goes on during oral argument in virtually every appellate court--federal or state--in the United States. In most jurisdictions you argue before a "hot" bench--the judges have read the briefs and are familiar with the contentions of the parties. The bench peppers counsel, almost to the point of rudeness, with questions about his/her arguments, often cutting deep into the limited time allotted. Some judges are more vocal than others, but if nothing else, a judge's speaking up shows everyone present that the full panel or the full court is engaged and cares enough about the issues raised to be inquisitive. Silence is not golden.
25
The article states that he is self-conscious about the way he speaks, but I truly hope that's not playing into his lack of participation with the court. If so, he should get some professional help so he can come out of his shell.
8
I'm more convinced the Trump will win .. WOW .. just read the comments from the left. They all know .. and know best .... but don't see.
7
Sounds like you are talking about Trump.
4
The left? Is that how you define the people around you, right and left? Must be a fun life.
8
See what?
2
Instead of rerunning this story time after time, Mr. Liptak might want to spend some energy researching the question of whether appellate courts, especially those of Great Britain and Western Europe, allow for oral argument at all. It wasn't provided for in Genesis 1.1.
3
So what if GB & Europe do or do not allow oral arguments? This is our justice system. A lot wasn't provided in Genesis 1.1 There is a reason why there is separation of church and state!
4
For a judge to go 10 years without asking one single question is indicative of nothing other than laziness and/or lack of interest. Who knows if he's even paying attention?
17
I would like the Supreme Court to take a case challenging the biased partisan manner of the election of its members.
6
There are plenty of SC justices on the bench grilling the lawyers and as has been pointed out by other professionals the amount of documentation presented in advance of the hearings to the staff and justices is enormous. An alternative theory is that the justices who are the most vocal are really the ones that have made up their opinion because they are only asking questions to make a point.
The take of the lawyers presenting are that they can barely get two sentences out before the questions are firing from all directions. Usually Scalia leads the more conservative questions and Sotmayor, et al the liberal.
As far as the Anita Hill charges against Clarence if he would have been liberal with those charges then he would have been highly qualified to have been a Dem congressman or the President. Closing your eyes and ears won't make that fact go away.
The take of the lawyers presenting are that they can barely get two sentences out before the questions are firing from all directions. Usually Scalia leads the more conservative questions and Sotmayor, et al the liberal.
As far as the Anita Hill charges against Clarence if he would have been liberal with those charges then he would have been highly qualified to have been a Dem congressman or the President. Closing your eyes and ears won't make that fact go away.
2
I have heard from someone who has observed him that he sometimes appears to fall asleep during arguments. Guess it's like going to class or sitting through a meeting.
14
Being a responsible adult is dreadfully boring.
3
Not one question. There is a difference between a few questions and a lot of questions. But "not one" stands in a class all it's own. He is either making some kind of point, is depressed, or things he is out of his league one way or the other is what I'm thinking. And I would say the same thing if he was a white liberal female.
10
His mind is already made up, why waste time asking questions he isn't interested in having answered?
6
Maybe he's just shy.
7
Well perhaps, especially, in a Democracy, "Discourteous" as a reason for not challenging any aspect of court preceding ought to indeed to be a cause for alarm. In case Justice Thomas has not noticed, Democracy is not always a very courteous form of government. No, it is a sometimes raucus, ill mannered, incomplete and inconclusive. But thank God it is persistently so. If it were not, it would likely indicate a weakness in our tradition of individual freedoms, and that there were troops in the streets.
5
Surely in 10 years of important Constitutional cases Justice Thomas must have had some questions he wanted to pose to the parties during oral argument, some counterpoint or omission that wasn’t covered in the briefs, a point he wanted to emphasize to the other Justices, etc. However, out of a sense of decorum and/or other unknown factors, Constitutional Law is rendered for the country without such input and insight.
If Justice Thomas wants to provide a counterbalance to the “free-for-all” atmosphere at oral argument, couldn’t he simply pose judicious and respectfully-phrased questions to the lawyers, and not interrupt their responses? That would ensure his concerns were addressed or highlighted, and that his vote would be cast without any outstanding questions in his mind.
If Justice Thomas wants to provide a counterbalance to the “free-for-all” atmosphere at oral argument, couldn’t he simply pose judicious and respectfully-phrased questions to the lawyers, and not interrupt their responses? That would ensure his concerns were addressed or highlighted, and that his vote would be cast without any outstanding questions in his mind.
6
If a GOP candidate can rally a nation to deport 12 million "undocumented" immigrants, certainly something can be done to depose a sitting Supreme Court Justice.
3
Consider as well that the man may walk into every en banc argument already decided on what his ruling in the case before the Court will be; and asking questions and appearing to listen to the answers would merely interrupt the doodling in which he indulges out of public sight.
5
Asking questions is a sign of an interested and inquisitive mind. That Thomas has none speaks volumes.
16
I have an idea, why not just give Scalia two votes, and Thomas can take a permanent vacation. Since all he does is follow Scalia like a lap dog. At least we could save a little money against the deficit. The reason he doesn't ask questions is because he doesn't know what's going on. You may as well just put in a mannequin on that seat. Scalia is doing all the work anyway.
13
I suppose it's good to know that mediocrity is well represented on the US Supreme Court. (maybe great advocacy can mean the elimination of oral argument in favor of bookish, wonky laywers that live in libraries)
5
It might be quite possible that Mr. Thomas doesn't understand what goes on in the court. Give him time he might catch on.
9
The oral arguments are a formality and a tradition, but aside from interesting theater, don't really matter. I always love how people think they can get a sense of how the justices will rule from the questions. They can't.
This opinion fails to convince me that oral arguments are are an important part of the Supreme Court. Alliances, compromises, deliberation, research and decisions REALLY happen behind closed doors.
Maybe we should be outraged that SCOTUS decisions are made in private, outside the view of the public, but then we should argue that that SCOTUS has no justification in banning video from the court proceedings. In reality, I will never know if Justice Thomas asks a question during a hearing any more than I will know if he does so in private, as I am not going to be in the SCOTUS audience, and can't see first-hand what happened. I will be reading a written interpretation that was heavily edited either way.
This opinion fails to convince me that oral arguments are are an important part of the Supreme Court. Alliances, compromises, deliberation, research and decisions REALLY happen behind closed doors.
Maybe we should be outraged that SCOTUS decisions are made in private, outside the view of the public, but then we should argue that that SCOTUS has no justification in banning video from the court proceedings. In reality, I will never know if Justice Thomas asks a question during a hearing any more than I will know if he does so in private, as I am not going to be in the SCOTUS audience, and can't see first-hand what happened. I will be reading a written interpretation that was heavily edited either way.
2
As Einstein once said: insanity is to never change your mind on the same subject. Thomas is crazy.
9
I'm no fan of Thomas, and a 10-year run of silence is a bit extreme. But reading this article I actually think he has a point. Do we really need quasi-political bloviating during oral arguments? If the assertion is true (that cases are primarily decided on briefs and in private discussions), then can't you at least make a case that we don't need the discourse?
6
Justices should be judged on two things only: the quality of their written opinions and their general demeanor, the latter reflecting on the degree to which the American public grants legitimacy to judicial review, an unusual and tenuous power in a democracy.
Ordinarily, one might consider comments and questions from the bench as a sign of a curious and open mind. However, as the commentary and questions of Justice Scalia often demonstrate, this is not necessarily the case.
I am no fan of Justice Thomas. However, I do wonder how many of the Most Recommended commenters who trash him have actually read any of his opinions, not just the online take-away from their usual, comfortable source.
Ordinarily, one might consider comments and questions from the bench as a sign of a curious and open mind. However, as the commentary and questions of Justice Scalia often demonstrate, this is not necessarily the case.
I am no fan of Justice Thomas. However, I do wonder how many of the Most Recommended commenters who trash him have actually read any of his opinions, not just the online take-away from their usual, comfortable source.
6
Enjoy the silent Judge Thomas while you can. Ted Cruz will appoint outright Inquisitionists.
7
No fear. Trump is going to win, but he will appoint Cruz to the court to replace the retiring Ginsburg, as Cruz may be the foremost constitutional laywer in the country.
1
Now there's a dream-team scenario
1
When one agrees always with Mr. Scalia, there is no reason to question. Sad that he is among the nine most important justices in the world. His potential for good is unrealized. Yet we all saw a preview of this in his pre-SCOTUS life and his dealings with Anita Hill.
7
First, I must remark that I have rarely seen such completely uniformed vitriol hurled at someone who should be looked to as a role model. Justice Thomas has accomplished things exponentially beyond the capacity of his critics. What is particularly disturbing are the personal invectives made. It seems that many whose primary objection about him is their disagreement with his positions, somehow use that as a reason for disparaging his abilities and even his character. Many of the offensive comments are borderline racist because Justice Thomas does not fit the stereotype they have determined he should fit. Using a stereotype to judge someone is pure bigotry, no matter who uses it.
Has anyone critical of his capabilities read any of the opinions he has authhored ? I have. I have disagreed with him, but that is irrelevant. They are professional, highly intelligently written.
As to the substance of the article - the reality is that oral arguments do little if anything to sway the decision of the Supreme Court. I am privileged to be admitted to practice before that court, so I speak with some knowledge. The justices opinions are based primarily upon the innumerable documentation and research which has been presented. This material is exhaustively reviewed by staff and the Justice, and is thoroughly analyzed and reviewed.
How sad that people can be so derisive to such an accomplished man simply because they disagree with him.
Has anyone critical of his capabilities read any of the opinions he has authhored ? I have. I have disagreed with him, but that is irrelevant. They are professional, highly intelligently written.
As to the substance of the article - the reality is that oral arguments do little if anything to sway the decision of the Supreme Court. I am privileged to be admitted to practice before that court, so I speak with some knowledge. The justices opinions are based primarily upon the innumerable documentation and research which has been presented. This material is exhaustively reviewed by staff and the Justice, and is thoroughly analyzed and reviewed.
How sad that people can be so derisive to such an accomplished man simply because they disagree with him.
5
Maybe the fact that he sexually harassed a co-worker is also off putting.
12
Uninformed vitriol? The people who comment on the times can be called many things but uninformed? Maybe jurists like yourself would be more comfortable living under a religious dictatorship like Iran.
5
"The justices opinions are...:"
Do most lawyers privileged to argue before the SCOtUS frequently neglect to use apostrophes to indicate possessives?
Or is this some ironic internet-chat-thread grammatical affirmative-action, designed to compensate in some small way for the millions who misuse apostrophes in writing plurals?
Do most lawyers privileged to argue before the SCOtUS frequently neglect to use apostrophes to indicate possessives?
Or is this some ironic internet-chat-thread grammatical affirmative-action, designed to compensate in some small way for the millions who misuse apostrophes in writing plurals?
I cannot help but wonder whether Clarence Thomas's silence is a result of unwillingness to spend much time thinking about the cases at all. The opinions attributed to him can easily be written by his carefully selected, like-minded law clerks.
15
It is astounding that people judge this man so negatively based on his not asking questions. These people can not hide their own bias.
6
Yes, people are biased towards an uninquisitive SCOTUS justice.
Is that really a problem for you?
Is that really a problem for you?
11
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."
Abraham Lincoln, 16th President of the USA
Or maybe he just doesn't have much to say. The strong, silent type...
Abraham Lincoln, 16th President of the USA
Or maybe he just doesn't have much to say. The strong, silent type...
7
An uninquisitive mind for a Supreme Court Justice? What could possible go wrong?
Ahem.
The frank truth is that he's intellectually inferior to the other justices. He never, ever should have been voted to sit on the nation's highest court. It was simply rammed through by mendacious politicians pushing an ideological agenda. I don't know or care what happened with Anita Hill. Thomas simply is not equipped for the office. And we're saddled with him until he croaks. Pity the Republic!
Ahem.
The frank truth is that he's intellectually inferior to the other justices. He never, ever should have been voted to sit on the nation's highest court. It was simply rammed through by mendacious politicians pushing an ideological agenda. I don't know or care what happened with Anita Hill. Thomas simply is not equipped for the office. And we're saddled with him until he croaks. Pity the Republic!
16
How much of this has to do with him having already made up his mind before hearing the arguments, or even reading the briefs?
7
Thomas's behavior on the bench seems improper to me. Oral argument has a long tradition for good reason. A judge asks oral questions to cut through biased arguments attorneys make in their legal briefs for their client. In many cases, an attorney that has no prayer of winning a case will submits a brief that's full of bluster. Oral argument gives the court the opportunity to address the essence of legal arguments made in the legal briefs. The only reason I can think of that a judge would consistently chose not ask any questions is that he's trying to hide the fact that he can't prove that he has the intellectual ability to engage such a high level exchange of ideas in a public setting. Thomas's defenders say he's the most consistent justice on the court. But when it comes to law, there no virtue in robotic consistency. Law is expressed in language which is an inherently imperfect mode of expression -- that's one reason new legal questions arise. But Thomas is set on autopilot, doesn't ask questions and renders one predictable decision after the next. He's just not on the same intellectual level as the other justices.
8
Talk about milking ones tenured status. Where's the clamor for his head on a platter like all the other tenured civil servants not quite as lofty as his "honor"?
4
Justices aren't "civil servants" and tenure is utterly irrelevant.
2
I have never argued in front of the Supreme Court but have argued in front of other appellate courts. The reality is that the Supreme Court justices have already read miles of briefs from at least three hearings in the case from lower courts, had their clerks brief all the relevant cases and have decided how they are going to rule long before the case gets to oral arguments. Oral arguments have become nothing more than theater. Anyone who has read Thomas' opinion would not allege that he is uninformed or disinterested. He just does not like playing the silly game. The other eight justices would do well to listen more and talk less. But again, they have made up their mind before it ever gets to oral arguments. I doubt there has been a case in 50 years where the majority on the bench was swayed by some impressive argument, not already argued in the lower court, or thought of by the justices.
6
I had the opportunity to serve on a jury two weeks ago, and it confirmed everything that is good and decent about America. The jury paid close attention, and when it was time for deliberations, we each argued, some with great passion, for our views. At the beginning of the deliberations, we were split nearly down the middle. But by the end, one half had persuaded the other half to consider their views and points, and we came to a decision. This is, I think, what Clarence Thomas is missing - not only the chance to engage with his colleagues and the lawyers, but also the chance to see if his views and thoughts might influence theirs.
My fellow jurors impressed me with their thinking, their courtesy and their viewpoints. 12 or 9 people coming to a consensus is a powerful force. I wish Clarence Thomas would see that his voice also matters, even if people disagree with him, for we can all help one another grow and see different viewpoints if only we allow it, and sharing our viewpoints is a vital part of this process.
My fellow jurors impressed me with their thinking, their courtesy and their viewpoints. 12 or 9 people coming to a consensus is a powerful force. I wish Clarence Thomas would see that his voice also matters, even if people disagree with him, for we can all help one another grow and see different viewpoints if only we allow it, and sharing our viewpoints is a vital part of this process.
8
The Justices convene after oral arguments are complete in a case. They discuss the case amongst themselves and make arguments attempting to sway other justices to their view. They then take a preliminary vote and the Chief Justice may issue a decision on who will write the opinion and who will write the dissent. Nobody has alleged that Thomas is silent during this phase of the deliberations. I am sure that he is an active jurist and his voice is heard when it counts...oral arguments are nothing but fluff and show for the media
3
Your sole role as jurors was to determine the facts.
Not the same as thinking through legal arguments.
Not the same as thinking through legal arguments.
1
I don't think he ever recovered from the Anita Hill controversy and doesn't want to take the chance of misspeaking in public. Other than that, he is clearly not the "intellectual giant" we all like to see in a Supreme Court justice. If we need a black man on the court, he should quit and let Barack Obama take his seat after his presidency ends.
11
Justice can find all the excuse he wants but the bottom line is he is just not that curious intellectually. He came to court already decided how he would vote: ultra conservative, and would not interested in opening up his mind (and ears) to listen to the other side. What a waste of time and an important position for the court.
7
An old adage comes to mind - "better to be silent and people think you are a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt".
2
I'm not sure this article fully captures Justice Thomas's actual views on this subject -- and the comments here certainly do not. Having reviewed his statements on this topic in some detail, it's pretty clear that it's not the case that Justice Thomas simply thinks its rude to ask a question at oral argument. He understands that questions are an important point of the entire exercise. But he correctly regards himself as sitting alongside a number of fellow justices who ask far too many questions, and in this context he thinks asking an additional question or two would do more harm than good. And, frankly, I think he may be right. If you visit the Court and sit through an argument, you'll probably see what he means: the questions are unremitting and most of them, I think, are far less productive than one might imagine.
If he were sitting on a quieter bench (not likely ever to happen) I think you'd hear him pipe up more often.
If he were sitting on a quieter bench (not likely ever to happen) I think you'd hear him pipe up more often.
5
The tenor of this article is a bit disingenuous and patronizing; concluding with "Were Justice Thomas to talk, people would listen."!
Perhaps you're experiencing cognitive dissonance with "conservative Black"?
Cipher...
Does he hate affirmative action because it allows his White colleagues to denigrate his accomplishments?
Is he in cahoots with his conservative, politically-active wife and should have recused himself from many cases?
You can analyze, weigh, and measure his character, politics, performance, intellect, competence, history, writings, Blackness, etc. all you want, but the man has the power and, in the end, that's all that counts.
The real, moral question to this nation is why did we sit on our hands when the SCOTUS handed down the decision for Bush v. Gore?
Were the people to talk, would SCOTUS listen?
Perhaps you're experiencing cognitive dissonance with "conservative Black"?
Cipher...
Does he hate affirmative action because it allows his White colleagues to denigrate his accomplishments?
Is he in cahoots with his conservative, politically-active wife and should have recused himself from many cases?
You can analyze, weigh, and measure his character, politics, performance, intellect, competence, history, writings, Blackness, etc. all you want, but the man has the power and, in the end, that's all that counts.
The real, moral question to this nation is why did we sit on our hands when the SCOTUS handed down the decision for Bush v. Gore?
Were the people to talk, would SCOTUS listen?
One has to wonder what you mean by sitting on our hands when the Court handed down Bush v. Gore. I read all three opinions and thought they got it right in Bush v. Gore. First you have to realize the Court handed down three opinion. They were 9-0 on the issue of whether the recount process implemented at the behest of Gore and his team (namely only recounting counties where Gore expected to make gains) violated due process and equal protection. Second was the issue of whether a recount with objective standards for reviewing ballots and completed state-wide was the only constitutional process. They were 6-3 that it was. The last question was whether the State of Florida or the Supreme Court could suspend statutory deadlines for certifying the election results and having the states electors convene with the reset of the Electoral College. It was 5-4 that they could not. Since there had already been a state-wide machine recount and there was not time for a had recount of the entire state then the machine recount was the certified result. There is no evidence that a hand recount would have changed the result. It is also noteworthy that while the Gore team was claiming to want every vote counted they were working to keep military votes coming in from over seas from being counted if they arrived late even if the result of an inefficient military mail system.
4
Asking an attorney to clarify the nuances of their argument on a point of law on which a Justices might otherwise might not concur, is not only appropriate, but essential for a fair hearing of a case.
I suppose this is better than usual Jeffrey Toobin's line about "disgraceful silence." But here's something that struck me as I read this. I recall Liptak's argument earlier this year about how Thomas cribs from party briefs at a higher clip (11.3%) than any other justice (of course, Sotomayor missed this honor by .3% and the *lowest* was slightly behind, Kagan at 7.1). But then here, Liptak points out that "judging by his concurrences and dissents, often joined by no other justice, he is not much interested in compromise, persuasion or coalition building." You can't have it both ways. Either Thomas is a plagiarizing, uninventive justice -- an impression the headline on the last article undeniably conveys -- or he's an inventive extremist loner. (Of course, I'd use a far more charitable description, but...baby steps).
4
Some -- not a great deal -- of what Thomas says makes sense. My experience as both an undergraduate and graduate student many years ago was that some ask questions to draw attention to themselves, not to attain clarification regarding a subject being presented/discussed.
I believe that may be a motivation for some of those currently on the court, especially Scalia. I have never thought of the exchanges among the justices as analogous to "Family Feud," but I have thought that we frequently get politicians in judicial robes expounding more on their ideology than points of law requiring consideration or clarification.
I believe that may be a motivation for some of those currently on the court, especially Scalia. I have never thought of the exchanges among the justices as analogous to "Family Feud," but I have thought that we frequently get politicians in judicial robes expounding more on their ideology than points of law requiring consideration or clarification.
2
I am no fan of Justice Thomas. To say the least ! However, I do wonder how many of the Most Recommended commenters have actually read any of his opinions, not just the online take-away from their usual, comfortable source.
Ordinarily, questions from the bench can be considered the sign of a curious and open mind. However, as the commentary and questions of Justice Scalia often demonstrate, this is not necessarily the case. Different Justices have different approaches, which is a good thing. They should be judged on two things only: the quality of their written opinions and their general demeanor, the latter reflecting on the degree to which the American public grants legitimacy to judicial review, an unusual and tenuous power in a democracy.
Ordinarily, questions from the bench can be considered the sign of a curious and open mind. However, as the commentary and questions of Justice Scalia often demonstrate, this is not necessarily the case. Different Justices have different approaches, which is a good thing. They should be judged on two things only: the quality of their written opinions and their general demeanor, the latter reflecting on the degree to which the American public grants legitimacy to judicial review, an unusual and tenuous power in a democracy.
3
Justice Thomas is a personal hero of mine. He is a true example of the a man reaching his full potential under the American system. He is a sharp and courageous intellect, and it is nothing short of disgraceful that so many on the left slander this great man with little to no shame.
6
"He is a sharp and courageous intellect.."
I am not being facetious here - really, I'd like to know on what empirical evidence do you base your assessment of Thomas' 'sharp and courageous intellect'. His confirmation hearings? His pioneering breakthroughs in American jurisprudence? Articles in Harvard Law Review/Yale Law Journal?
At what point do intellectual timidity, complacency and ideological blindfolds translate into courage and intellect?
I am not being facetious here - really, I'd like to know on what empirical evidence do you base your assessment of Thomas' 'sharp and courageous intellect'. His confirmation hearings? His pioneering breakthroughs in American jurisprudence? Articles in Harvard Law Review/Yale Law Journal?
At what point do intellectual timidity, complacency and ideological blindfolds translate into courage and intellect?
12
Writing thirty opinions to dissent or concur last term (more than any other justice, as reported by Mr. Liptak) indicates Justice Thomas's intellect is as sharp and courageous as Dave claims. Suggesting that writing a few law review articles would be greater evidence indicates that you haven't read many law review articles.
4
No, muezzin, you are not being facetious, you are being ridiculous.
The answer is his opinions, which, judging by your puerile comment, you have not read (or seem to be aware of).
The answer is his opinions, which, judging by your puerile comment, you have not read (or seem to be aware of).
4
It's sad that being ashamed of his accent keeps him from speaking in his professional duties, which would likely have held him back and limited his achievements prior to the era of affirmative action. And yet he wants to deny this opportunity to others from similar or much more greatly disadvantaged backgrounds.
4
Look closely. This is what a bad judicial appointment actually looks like. Instead of the kabuki dance we usually encounter at senate confirmation hearings, maybe someone should ask if the prospective justice is going to participate in oral argument? Write original decisions rather than tag-team off another justice? Show more legal reasoning rather than ideology.
4
Conservatives should be as concerned as "liberals" are, if not more, by Thomas's silence. Of course Thomas has reached his decision before the oral arguments are made--indeed, all one needs to know are the parties involved in the case and some basic information in order to predict what he will decide. No one expects him to ask questions to inform decision-making. Rather, as Liptak points out, questions or statements during oral arguments serve the purpose of persuasion of the other justices, and speaking would perhaps provide an opportunity to go beyond his written decision in communicating his legal philosophy or views. Unlike Scalia, Thomas isn't quite giving the right its money's worth.
It's a overrated observation. What matters comes down to (a) what they say to each other in private while deciding a case, and (b) their written opinions.
6
I understand that this is not really what he was talking about, and it's not really relevant to the article, but I just wanted to point out the irony of a Supreme Court justice being quoted saying "I don't like it that way, but I'm nobody's boss."
2
How could any man of such importance not step up and be accountable? How can anyone have respect for an empty chair? He's either not intelligent or likes the title. Maybe both.
2
George H Bush needed to nominate a Conservative African American from the Appellate Court. Judge Thomas Clarence was the one and only candidate. Make no doubt about it, he is an affirmative action appointment. If he opened his mouth and participated like the other eight justices, it would be clear he is not following the arguments and is not functioning at the same intellectual level (unlike Thurgood Marshall).
8
Well, I suppose he is smart enough to be a judge, maybe even a justice of the SCOTUS. But we could have done so much better. I have always suspected that he is representative of about how much the Republicans of the 1980s expected of minorities, a conjunction of racism and affirmative action, not unlike Samuel Pierce.
Mr. Justice Rehnquist's point of the purpose of oral arguments is well taken. Whatever the initial reasons for Mr. Justice Thomas's silence, I suspect that it is now a manifestation of a broader attitude of conservatives: having all the answers, they need no dialog.
Mr. Justice Rehnquist's point of the purpose of oral arguments is well taken. Whatever the initial reasons for Mr. Justice Thomas's silence, I suspect that it is now a manifestation of a broader attitude of conservatives: having all the answers, they need no dialog.
3
A few years of classroom teaching has led me to conclude that often people who talk a lot have very little to say. Those who are silent just as often know exactly what is happening.
6
Or those that are silent have lost the basis of the discussion and don't speak up for fear of letting their foolishness become public, Paul.
5
"Justice Thomas’s explanations for his disengagement from this aspect of the court’s work have varied,...:"
Is this an opinion piece? Because not asking questions is not the same thing as "disengagement from this aspect of the court’s work." To be disengaged he would also have to not be listening to the answers.
But the article seriously calls into question whether Thomas is competent to serve as a Supreme Court justice.
Is this an opinion piece? Because not asking questions is not the same thing as "disengagement from this aspect of the court’s work." To be disengaged he would also have to not be listening to the answers.
But the article seriously calls into question whether Thomas is competent to serve as a Supreme Court justice.
2
Not a curious fellow, is he? Inquiring minds want to know. And vice versa. Definitely an uncomfortable follower.
All people are wired differently. Some are simply better at verbal communication - and therefore more comfortable - than others who may be excellent writers but require time to reflect and gather their thoughts before putting pen to paper. And some simply can't suppress the need to babble even when no productive purpose is served. Put a non-verbal writer in a group with 2+ babblers and they tend to go silent. But their silence is not a reflection of their intellect or engagement... it's typically a reflection of their desire to get on with what's relevant and productive.
2
A suggested first question: "Hey, aren't you the guys who pay my wife's salary?"
The simple fact that he sits and votes on cases where he has a very obvious financial interest in the outcome makes me believe that Clarence Thomas is not fit to be a judge on any court whatsoever. Well, that, and what Anita Hill went through.
The simple fact that he sits and votes on cases where he has a very obvious financial interest in the outcome makes me believe that Clarence Thomas is not fit to be a judge on any court whatsoever. Well, that, and what Anita Hill went through.
9
Perhaps he doesn't wish to say much because of the vast left wing conspiracy against him when he was nominated. He may feel whatever he says will be so twisted by the left there is no point to saying much.
3
In other words ,Thomas is afraid of the "left wing conspiracy"?
He certainly doesn't strike me a man who can be influenced by
fear, of the "left wing conspiracy" or anything else.
He certainly doesn't strike me a man who can be influenced by
fear, of the "left wing conspiracy" or anything else.
2
I also went through college and law school asking few questions, adhering too closely to the admonition: "Better to be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and prove it." A subsequent career in court showed me the folly of that position. Oral argument may not be the main basis for most legal decisions, but it is the most accessible (and the most human) one. It is also the most fun. What a shame it is that Justice Thomas denies himself this joy, while denying the rest of us a glimpse of his humanity.
7
So Howard, did Justice Brennan, who rarely asked a question and who did not like oral arguments deny the bar and public a '' glimpse of his humanity'' ? Oh I forgot...he is an icon of the legal left so he will never be held to the same standard as Justice Thomas currently is. P.S. I went to law school too and practice here in the Empire State.
6
Thomas is probably right about the interruptions. But sitting there any listening to a lawyer drone on for an hour, merely restating everything s/he's already put in the brief isn't much on an improvement, is it? Counsel should be invited to stand before the court and answer questions. Oral "argument" of cases that have been thoroughly briefed and thoroughly dissected (like all Supreme Court cases are) are merely live performances of written argument and as such are not very useful.
1
Wouldn't it all be simpler and less politicized if each President was allowed to always appoint one new Justice every two years (2 per term)? Minimum of 7 justices (in case of a rash of deaths/retirements), perhaps if ending the lifetime term then something like 25 years. No maximum number of seats.
Over time, the Court would generally (but indirectly) reflect actual electoral outcomes without the "crapshoot" aspect of some Presidents appointing many members while others few if any.
And wouldn't such an approach lessen the stakes in any single appointment, allowing partisans to give a pass more easily to qualified but ideologically different appointees?
Over time, the Court would generally (but indirectly) reflect actual electoral outcomes without the "crapshoot" aspect of some Presidents appointing many members while others few if any.
And wouldn't such an approach lessen the stakes in any single appointment, allowing partisans to give a pass more easily to qualified but ideologically different appointees?
51
I don't believe the framers of the Constitution were interested in creating a court that reflects electoral outcomes. In fact, I believe the reverse is true. A limited number of justices appointed for life was devised to prevent electoral changes from constantly changing the composition of the court and enables the court to act as that independent third branch of government, which, with some exceptions, it has done remarkably well over the years. I constantly read about countries (Venezuela is a current example) where a political party has gained control of the court, and the court toes the line. Not a situation I would like to cope with.
2
You have a good point.
Also I am sure the framers of the Constitution did not envision how the percentage of people living well into their 80's and 90s would go up so dramatically. Over the first 200 years of our nation we probably had a handful all together of SC justices that lived that long, but not 6 or 8 at a time. The lifelong appointment was not really meant to be 40 to 50 years for each justice.
Also I am sure the framers of the Constitution did not envision how the percentage of people living well into their 80's and 90s would go up so dramatically. Over the first 200 years of our nation we probably had a handful all together of SC justices that lived that long, but not 6 or 8 at a time. The lifelong appointment was not really meant to be 40 to 50 years for each justice.
Ahhh there you go again (I loved Reagan). Messing with the United States Constitution.
The idea that the justices ask questions in order that the litigators help them reach the proper legal conclusion is hopeful at best. Just listen to a few SCOTUS oral argument sessions. The justices are simply using the litigators to persuade one another of their positions, which are pretty much determined before they take their seats (with the possible exception of the loose-cannon Kennedy). Justice Thomas's silence at least has the virtue of honesty. He doesn't pretend that a brilliant answer from a litigator will "clarify" something and change his mind.
This Court is made up of two ideologically retrenched voting blocs.
This Court is made up of two ideologically retrenched voting blocs.
5
As someone commented below - 20 year term limits. Boot them all out and get started on repealing Citizens United.
6
He is clearly fearful that he will appear foolish if he speaks. He never asked questions in college or law school because he was intimidated by some of his fellow students. Fine, but it seems to me that an ability to ask intelligent questions should be a job requirement for a Supreme Court Justice, any judge, or even a young lawyer. Justice Thomas could have chosen another calling that rewarded silence, but he does not belong on the bench.
7
According to Justice Thomas the lawyer for a plaintiff should just submit his/her case and the judges would read it and then email back their judgement. We need open courts where lively discussions can be made concerning major cases and their final judgements. Clarence Thomas is probably a very smart man, but who knows since he never asks a questions. Maybe, Thomas is one of those people who are very intelligent, but do not have the personal makeup to be a Supreme Court Justice or President of the United States. What motivates an African American like Clarence Thomas to be a member of the Republican party, since Republicans have done very when it comes to civil rights and Thomas himself benefited from Democrat legislation. After LBJ signed the 1965 Civil Rights Act all the Southern Democrats became Republicans. Please remember that the next president will be adding new justices to the court. Do we really want more Clarence Thomas so-called conservative types on the Supreme Court?
2
This man is the scourge of American justice. He opposes every sensible argument, every step forward by American society. He offers no defense of his wretched beliefs, only silence. Maybe he suffers from dementia.
6
Thomas' time on the bench is one of the most sickening in its history. He doesn't participate and his rulings invariably mimic his crass companion, Justice Scalia. That Thomas' story keeps changing shows how intellectually bankrupt he is. Both men need to be led away from the Supreme Court--Scalia by resignation, Thomas through impeachment.
6
I do not care for Justice Thomas' judiciary philosophy. But, I don't hane a problem of him not speaking in court. Show me in the constitution that says a justice has to speak.
I think that racism is playing a part in these criticisms. Here is a Black man who don't have a "let my people go" mindset.
If he was a White guy, people wouldn't have a problem. But because he is a child of the Civil Rights movement, people can't figure out why he don't see himself as a deliverer of the poor and less fortunate.
The crux of the matter is that this is a Black man who refuse to conform to society's view of how Black jurists should act. Btw, I am a Black liberal.
I think that racism is playing a part in these criticisms. Here is a Black man who don't have a "let my people go" mindset.
If he was a White guy, people wouldn't have a problem. But because he is a child of the Civil Rights movement, people can't figure out why he don't see himself as a deliverer of the poor and less fortunate.
The crux of the matter is that this is a Black man who refuse to conform to society's view of how Black jurists should act. Btw, I am a Black liberal.
5
alan- you said it right!
I remember when he was chosen. Apparently, there are ratings for judges. Thomas wasn't in the top tier of the ratings. Well, it was only the supreme court and a lifetime appointment so no worries.
4
Ladies and Gentlemen, the emperor has no clothes.
5
Justice Thomas defines racism in America.
He should be impeached. He can't be. Or, maybe he can.
According to the website of The US Supreme Court, under FAQ's:
"How long to the Justices serve?"
"The Constitution states that Justices "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour." This means that the Justices hold office as long as they choose and can only be removed from office by impeachment."
Judge Thomas:
Truth: Bad behavior has no 'racial' boundaries.
Fact: Bad behavior will be prosecuted.
Result: Cries of racism, unless the criminal is Caucasian.
He should be impeached. He can't be. Or, maybe he can.
According to the website of The US Supreme Court, under FAQ's:
"How long to the Justices serve?"
"The Constitution states that Justices "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour." This means that the Justices hold office as long as they choose and can only be removed from office by impeachment."
Judge Thomas:
Truth: Bad behavior has no 'racial' boundaries.
Fact: Bad behavior will be prosecuted.
Result: Cries of racism, unless the criminal is Caucasian.
1
I am astounded at the consensus of negativity on Justice Thomas. If he had a shred of integrity (hah !), he would resign.
4
The point of this article is that Thomas's silence, for whatever reason, results in his abstention from an important part of the legal process. It also argues that if Thomas participated, all indications are that his questioning would be a positive contribution: "Were Justice Thomas to talk, people would listen."
The readers overwhelmingly assert that Thomas's silence is a product of his deep and dark deficiencies as a person and as a Justice. The quiet kid in the corner is often the smartest one in the class. He may have beliefs that are unconventional but better reasoned than the rest. It seems to me that the readers assume that the kid in the corner has something wrong with him when the truth could be very different. And no, I don't agree with Thomas, but I have no reason to believe his reasoning powers are deficient. He may reach the wrong conclusions but he gets there with admirable legal acumen.
The readers overwhelmingly assert that Thomas's silence is a product of his deep and dark deficiencies as a person and as a Justice. The quiet kid in the corner is often the smartest one in the class. He may have beliefs that are unconventional but better reasoned than the rest. It seems to me that the readers assume that the kid in the corner has something wrong with him when the truth could be very different. And no, I don't agree with Thomas, but I have no reason to believe his reasoning powers are deficient. He may reach the wrong conclusions but he gets there with admirable legal acumen.
4
By asking questions, he may just make the right conclusions.
Thomas' modus operandi: "I have made up my mind, don't confuse me with the facts."
Thomas' modus operandi: "I have made up my mind, don't confuse me with the facts."
3
Just like Ruth Bader Ginsberg!
3
Justice Ginsberg asks many question which clearly shows she's intellectually engaged.
2
Commenters should have more tolerance of diversity. In this case, diversity of judicial styles.
Sometimes silently listening to the questions of others and theiresponses is the best path to insight.
Sometimes silently listening to the questions of others and theiresponses is the best path to insight.
3
The key word there would be "sometimes."
No one has suggested that Clarence Thomas should raise questions in every oral argument or even in most of them. But 10 years of silence isn't "insight" or "diversity." It's non-participation. And if Thomas isn't going to participate in one of the most fundamental activities of the court, he should resign his seat and let someone else fill that role.
No one has suggested that Clarence Thomas should raise questions in every oral argument or even in most of them. But 10 years of silence isn't "insight" or "diversity." It's non-participation. And if Thomas isn't going to participate in one of the most fundamental activities of the court, he should resign his seat and let someone else fill that role.
3
Given that Justice Thomas' wife is so involved in extreme right wing politics (Tea Party), either she should resign from her highly politically slanted public position/job, or Thomas should recuse himself in any case that involves the Tea Party's mission. It's beyond the pale that he sits on the Supreme Court.
11
Ginsberg's husband was a close associate of Ross Perot, who did what he could for Ms. Ginsberg to assure her nomination to the Court. Mr. Ginsburg's law firm represented Perot in numerous legal matters, some quite controversial. Perot endowed a chair at Georgetown Law School in Mr. Ginsburg's name.
Apparently, Thomas's infraction isn't that his wife is politically active. It's that her activism is for causes you oppose.
Apparently, Thomas's infraction isn't that his wife is politically active. It's that her activism is for causes you oppose.
2
Apples and rotten oranges: There's a big difference in an attorney serving a client (with whom he might not agree - very often the case) and having one's spouse be the cause celebre for her vehement or even venomous opposition to e.g. gay rights while her husband, Justice Thomas, is having to rule on gay marriage. This is so wrong on so many levels.
2
Any chance he can persuade Scalia to shut up?
13
If he started talking, he would have to show that he had actually done research and given the subject at hand actual thought. He has a job for life. He has strong, deeply held notions. He doesn't have to think very much. I think that maybe the last time he really thought about anything what how to smear and destroy Anita Hill.
13
What was the last Thomas opinion you read? Are you aware that he wrote 36 opinions last term, far exceeding every other member of the Court? Are you aware that he wrote more pages than any other Justice? Read one of his opinions from last term and take stock of the copious research and thought that goes into them. In other words, maybe *you* should start doing some research and give the subject at hand actual thought.
7
The opinions - as noted by Liptak - are written by the clerks.
Questions are revealing of the competence, engagement and intellect, and on that front Thomas does very little to assure us of his worthiness to be a SCOTUS judge.
Questions are revealing of the competence, engagement and intellect, and on that front Thomas does very little to assure us of his worthiness to be a SCOTUS judge.
2
if you want assurance, try reading his opinions. a justice's primary function is to issue opinions. questions are not necessary, either to fulfill the duties of the job or to assure people like you of his competence (which assurance is also not his job to provide).
1
When Bernie Sanders is president, I hope that he will appoint the very qualified Anita Hill to fill the next vacancy on the Supreme Court.
11
Naming Clarence Thomas to replace Justice Thurgood Marshall was President George H. W. Bush's idea of revenge on the Civil Rights movement.
23
A fool by any other name is still a fool. This is a man who has agreed wth putting a president in office who went on to ruin our country. A fool!
13
Headline: It’s Been 10 Years. Would Clarence Thomas Like to Add Anything?
I'll be satisfied if he can add. Period.
I'll be satisfied if he can add. Period.
8
He has not problem speaking on the stump, at Federalist Society, and other right-wing meetings. He despises the court, he has made that clear in so many words, quoted in at least one of his biographies. He promised his detractors he would out-live them. He is there solely for vengeance and a fat paycheck for doing nothing. He is an embarrassment to the country. And that he laughs at death penalty cases and sleeps and plays cards the rest of the time, he should be impeached. Despicable.
15
The Court is an extremely necessary evil. It is easy to despise.
1
The appointment of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court is an ongoing embarrassment and remains the single largest blot on the legacy of George H.W. Bush.
12
Maybe. Abandoning the Kurds and Willie Horton are up there too.
2
Sine he won't as questions, I have one: when will he be impeached?
6
If I were Justice Thomas and knew I'd vote the same as Justice Scalia, I'd spend most of my time dreaming of future RV vacations.
7
In 1958 The misguided Right Wing John Birch Society floated an unsuccessful motion to Impeach the brilliant Chief Justice Earl Warren. Impeaching do-nothing Justice Clarence Thomas to clear a slot for a genuinely worthy Justice would be a great service the country. Let's launch an initiative to get that featherbedding slacker off the bench.
9
I am sure that Thomas asks one question, perhaps behind closed doors, with every decision made by the SCOTUS: "Which way we goin' on this one Nino?"
10
I'm less concerned about Justice Thomas not asking any questions than I am about the fact that the one time I sat in on a Supreme Court session (in 2006), Thomas seemed disinterested, bored, distracted and even somnambulant during the course of the oral arguments. I don't know whether THAT is typical of Justice Thomas, but it sure didn't inspire confidence, in me, in the workings of our highest court of justice. (Not that I've had much confidence since Gore v. Bush, 2000).
13
When I visited the Court he was sprawled out on the surface in front of him, like an ostentatiously disrespectful student faking sleep. But maybe he really was asleep.
4
Donny-Don wrote: I'm less concerned about Justice Thomas not asking any questions than I am about the fact that the one time I sat in on a Supreme Court session (in 2006), Thomas seemed disinterested, bored, distracted and even somnambulant during the course of the oral arguments."
I sat in on one Supreme Court session as well, and Justice Thomas spent the entire time tilted back in his chair. I assume he was either staring at the ceiling or sleeping, but it was hard to tell from the angle. Maybe he was listening. Who knows.
I sat in on one Supreme Court session as well, and Justice Thomas spent the entire time tilted back in his chair. I assume he was either staring at the ceiling or sleeping, but it was hard to tell from the angle. Maybe he was listening. Who knows.
1
So let's get this straight...in three years of law school Thomas didn't ask any questions about the Rule Against Perpetuities, the Dormant Commerce Clause or any other tedious legal concept because he was "intimidated" by some of his fellow students? He additionally failed to ask questions because he was "self-conscious" about the way he speaks? Is he still in fear? Has self-consciousness manifested into self-loathing? This would explain both his silence and "color-blindness" machinations.
9
Say you have two children who get into a dispute. They both come to you and tell two widely different stories about the dispute. Does anyone believe that the best course of action would be to decide which one is innocent and which one is guilty without asking any questions. This is one of several reasons why I do not think that Justice Thomas should sit on the Supreme Court.
6
The is about the benefit of public dialogue. Yes, those involved in Socratic dialogue often have their positions staked out before they begin speaking -- we all know that. However, an open discussion often greases the wheels of understanding and, mayhaps, in some cases, further the cause of knowledge. In other words, dialogue may teach us something -- the speaker, the listener, the general public all benefit from the process (at least the greatest ancient minds thought so). In the legal world, exposing our thoughts to a room of our peers is a central part of the appellate judicial process. It is, in many ways, the purest surviving form of Socratic dialogue in modern civilized society. Though everyone's positions are well known long before the oral argument, sometimes, when we say something out loud, the whole ball game changes. Unless, that is, one has taken one's bat, ball and glove home after having decided he doesn't want to play.
3
"“Well — he did not —” Justice Thomas said, according to the initial transcript released by the court. There followed this notation: “(Laughter.)”"
The explanation is simple: there is no there, there.
The explanation is simple: there is no there, there.
7
An intelligent man speaks clearly about the issues at hand. A wise man listens and only speaks when something of importance needs to be said and a point needs to be made. A silent man is neither intelligent nor wise for his lack of words shows he has nothing important to say and no point to be made.
7
It is tragic that Mr. Thomas was cynically appointed to this most crucial body. No one could claim he was the absolutely best & brightest. He was the 'diversity' appointment of right wing zealots, trying to mask their reactionary agenda.
He has succeeded in serving this ideological cadre, but has failed to demonstrate minimal intellectual heft, curiosity or depth in engaging with the issues before the court.
There are many brilliant & conservative people of color who could have been promoted. Maybe Thomas was chosen because of his capacity to be both rigid & silent, both hiding and stonewalled.
He has succeeded in serving this ideological cadre, but has failed to demonstrate minimal intellectual heft, curiosity or depth in engaging with the issues before the court.
There are many brilliant & conservative people of color who could have been promoted. Maybe Thomas was chosen because of his capacity to be both rigid & silent, both hiding and stonewalled.
10
For the most part, you need a question and an answer to form an argument. Without at least expecting such exchange, why would you even schedule "oral argument."
5
They're all there too long if we're debating style points.
The lifetime appointment had its day, but there should be serious term limits imposed on the court appointees. How often have they overstayed their welcome, or just become far too insulated from reality.
The law is a living being. If the founders goofed on anything, they needed to include a "revision" requirement every 50 years or so.
We would then legislate change with the states included for a change instead of letting 9 individuals make policy.
Back when all you needed to worry about was your land, your horse and your musket (add slave in the south), there really wasn't a whole lot of law to be concerned with.
Now, corporations are people, arbitration protects those same corporations from the people they harm, and well, just sayin', its not the same place my grandfather grew up in.
The lifetime appointment had its day, but there should be serious term limits imposed on the court appointees. How often have they overstayed their welcome, or just become far too insulated from reality.
The law is a living being. If the founders goofed on anything, they needed to include a "revision" requirement every 50 years or so.
We would then legislate change with the states included for a change instead of letting 9 individuals make policy.
Back when all you needed to worry about was your land, your horse and your musket (add slave in the south), there really wasn't a whole lot of law to be concerned with.
Now, corporations are people, arbitration protects those same corporations from the people they harm, and well, just sayin', its not the same place my grandfather grew up in.
3
Thomas is one of the worst Justices ever appointed to SCOTUS. He should never have been appointed and I can't wait until he retires along with Scalia and Alito. Unfortunately we are stuck with Roberts for a long while.
7
As Scalia tells him, so goes he. How many people has he killed by continuing to support capital punishment because Scalia tells him to do so? How can anybody respect him?
9
In the sad and reprehensible case of Justice Thomas, his style and his substance are one and the same - he is an intellectual empty suit. Worse perhaps is his willful misreading of the Constitution, his hypocrisy (opposing opportunities that he himself took advantage of, like affirmative action), and his corruption (not recusing himself when he or his wife have a vested interest in the matter). He is a bad judge, in every sense.
349
Anyone who doesn't understand that affirmative action was, is and will always be unconstitutional, is a social scientist, not a judge, and has no business anywhere near a courtroom, let alone a seat on SCOTUS.
2
Intellectual empty suit is the core of the matter.
Read "Strange Justice: The Selling of Clarence Thomas" by a former Wall St,. Journal reporter for significant and detailed background.
Note also, "David Brock's disavowal of his book, "The Real Anita Hill" ...it is a non-credible account, by the author's own admission."
More reviews:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R110WTQX7S25Y3/ref=cm_cr_pr_vi...
Read "Strange Justice: The Selling of Clarence Thomas" by a former Wall St,. Journal reporter for significant and detailed background.
Note also, "David Brock's disavowal of his book, "The Real Anita Hill" ...it is a non-credible account, by the author's own admission."
More reviews:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R110WTQX7S25Y3/ref=cm_cr_pr_vi...
He is actually one of the most intellectually consistent Justices on the Court. But you disagree with his viewpoints, so you attack him as a person. You sound like a Trump fan talking about Obama.
February 1, 2016
In the beginning was the word; yet not for Justice Clarence Thomas, at least from the bench of the highest court in the land. I respect his unique effort; for whatever satisfaction, as well I default to his rulings for the record. By the by, it not unusual for organized groups to encounter oddity to itself operating style and I will await his post court years biography and what may give light to hearing the silence justification that intrigues many. As long as the best effort and under his oath of duty is satisfied then happy we pray for truth in all matters in the court of living justice on earth and our homeland America.
jja Manhattan, N. Y.
In the beginning was the word; yet not for Justice Clarence Thomas, at least from the bench of the highest court in the land. I respect his unique effort; for whatever satisfaction, as well I default to his rulings for the record. By the by, it not unusual for organized groups to encounter oddity to itself operating style and I will await his post court years biography and what may give light to hearing the silence justification that intrigues many. As long as the best effort and under his oath of duty is satisfied then happy we pray for truth in all matters in the court of living justice on earth and our homeland America.
jja Manhattan, N. Y.
1
I find his defenders and their reasoning to be amusing; first of all, after 200 plus years, there is only ONE Justice who has figured out that oral argument is worthless, and it's Clarence Thomas? Also, it is true that while the most if not all the work is in "the briefs", it's amazing that Thomas in ten years hasn't had a single question on anything that either side making oral arguments has written, just out of his own curiosity as a leading Jurist, or how it may be applied to some future case. Amazing.
16
This piece addresses nothing about oral argument...it is about a justice asking questions at that time. The two are not the same. We know precisely nothing about his questions and style when the justices meet with each other.
2
If you are sitting on the Supreme Court and remain silent, you are not doing your job. If you are shy, easily intimidated, and lack self-confidence, you should not be on the Supreme Court. It was a mistake to appoint this man to such an important position. And Anita Hill knows all about his "jokes."
22
Remember, dear voters, it was a Bush that gave us Clarence Thomas.
21
And it was Woodrow Wilson who gave us James Clark McReynolds.
Wilson also gave us Brandeis.
3
And Bush also gave us Souter.
The poster child for 20 year term limits.
Justice Thomas, you have embarrassed the nation quite enough, please go away, and take your politically active spouse with you.
Justice Thomas, you have embarrassed the nation quite enough, please go away, and take your politically active spouse with you.
22
I would agree if Scalia weren't on the court. He is the bigger of the two embarrassments. Thomas may be intelligent enough to know he is not very intelligent while Scalia wears his ignorance as a badge of honor.
1
I can well imagine a brilliant but quiet justice asking few questions. But I cannot imagine that person answering none. The absence of overt signs of curiosity is likely due to insecurity, resentment, towering arrogance, or some combination of these.
11
I am a terrible liberal, and I disagree with just about every position Thomas takes, and I would wager that his worldview and mine are diametrically opposed, but it doesn't mean his silence is a sign of incompetence or lack of engagement. I suspect it is - more than anything - the difficulty us liberals have in understanding how anyone could be both conservative and black, which says a lot about how liberal we truly are.
4
I have argued appellate cases in multiple federal circuits. I argued before Alito when he was on the 3rd Circuit and Stephen Rienhardt on the 9th, among the extremes of conservative and liberal judges. Reinhardt treated me as the enemy because I worked at the U.S. Attorney's Office. Alito was kind to me because I had worked in the New Jersey U.S. Attorney's Office that he headed. I now know that Alito and I agree on next to nothing politically. But he was a very gracious questioner for me.
I've made dozens of oral arguments. There is no doubt that most of the dialogue involves judges communicating with each other. I don't believe that any idea I ever introduced at argument materially affected my case. In fact, a couple of times the judges asked the lawyers to brief new issues. Those subsequent briefings were not followed by arguments -- that was not required and the judges apparently decided argument was a waste of time.
The briefs I submitted in my cases represented my best efforts. Oral arguments are spontaneous. Improving on hours of research with an off the cuff remark is unlikely at best. Oral argument is a performance of little substantive effect. The most constructive purpose of such argument is for the lawyers to clarify the facts of the case for the judges, For some reason, fact questions are few and far between. Apparently, judges aren't interested in what they don't know and they prefer to engage in a back and forth about what they do know.
I've made dozens of oral arguments. There is no doubt that most of the dialogue involves judges communicating with each other. I don't believe that any idea I ever introduced at argument materially affected my case. In fact, a couple of times the judges asked the lawyers to brief new issues. Those subsequent briefings were not followed by arguments -- that was not required and the judges apparently decided argument was a waste of time.
The briefs I submitted in my cases represented my best efforts. Oral arguments are spontaneous. Improving on hours of research with an off the cuff remark is unlikely at best. Oral argument is a performance of little substantive effect. The most constructive purpose of such argument is for the lawyers to clarify the facts of the case for the judges, For some reason, fact questions are few and far between. Apparently, judges aren't interested in what they don't know and they prefer to engage in a back and forth about what they do know.
3
I have argued before the 1st & 2nd Cir. Courts while working as an assistant u s attorney. I also worked as a law clerk for a federal judge. The give and take between the judges and the attorney in oral argument is a crucial determinant.
1
Law clerks always think they know more than they do. I suspect I have argued many more cases than you. You have had access to one judge.and you've made some unknown number of arguments. You learn a lot more about oral argument by engaging in it than listening to what one judge has to say. After all, Thomas clearly discounts oral argument. To make a definitive statement to the contrary based on your clerkship is presumptuous.
1
Just read "Showdown", a biography of Thurgood Marshall. That the first Bush replaced him with Clarence Thomas will always curdle my blood when I hear Jeb call his father the greatest living American. The Bush family has done so much to lessen the moral stature of this country.
353
I actually think that Jimmy Carter is probably the greatest living American. But that's another story altogether.
1
The Bushes are frauds in every sense of the word.
Why don't you just leave the guy alone?
We'll leave him alone when he leaves us alone. Which means stepping down, because he has undue influence over our lives in his current position.
21
Because he is a national embarrassment.
6
Silence is the best refuge of a minuscule mind.
8
This sounds like HRC's campaign strategy
3
His mind is already made up about everything. He uses the torture lawyer, John Woo, to make sure that all his clerks are loyal members of the Conservative Movement. No actual thinking required.
10
Call it what it is. He's out of his league but has the good sense to know it.
15
I argued before the Court once and Justice Thomas did not ask a question. He did file a dissent that was not joined in by any of the other 3 dissenters. If he were interested in testing his more extreme view of this case - overruling decades old Supreme Court precedent - he should have been willing to test his thesis in the crucible of argument by the parties and other members of the Court. It is disappointing that he does not believe he has that obligation to the judicial process.
10
I don't know that we should be soliciting verbal input from Justice Thomas.
11
The mind is a terrible thing to waste. It's a tragedy that Thomas's keen intellect is so scarred.
1
Without interruption? Saves the Justices from feeling any pressure to come up with a good one or two, don't you think? As a citizen, I think I'd appreciate the good Justice Thomas probing folks a bit on my behalf. Since I can't, unless I want to stand up in the middle of an argument, shout one out, then get jailed for interrupting the rapt, albeit silent, attention of at least one Justice.
We might be better served, however, if some of the other Justices bit their tongues instead of chewing off big mouths-full of our rights.
We might be better served, however, if some of the other Justices bit their tongues instead of chewing off big mouths-full of our rights.
1
Why does he even bother to show up? He could just cast his vote by saying "Whatever Scalia wants". I am rather surprised that any of the comments view him in a favorable way. His votes against the middle and working classes. He is a disgrace to the bench.
18
In the fall of 2008, I visited the Court during oral argument. Sitting with the tourists in the very back of the dimly lighted room, I strained to see the Justices, looking in particular for my favorite. There she was, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and all the others, but wait, aren't there nine Justices? One seemed to be missing, until I realized that Justice Thomas indeed was there, sitting with his head down on the bench in front of him. I was shocked by his disrespect for the arguing attorneys, for the Court, and for the visitors.
13
Why would we want Clarence Thomas to talk? If he had anything of substance to say, he would say it. We already know how he will vote on most issues, keeping the underprivileged in their place. The less that comes out of his mouth, the better.
179
I understand where he's coming from. If I'm sitting in a table surrounded by people much smarter and more knowledgeable than myself, I tend to just shut up and listen as well.
12
This same story has been written since the 1990s. It was a dead horse in 2006. It still is.
1
You mean, you didn't care to hear it then, and you still don't. Too bad.
2
A man of finer character would have resigned from the court years ago.
9
Even Garbo spoke!
What's Clarence hiding?
What's Clarence hiding?
4
Even Harpo spoke & wrote about himself - Harpo Speaks.
1
Any statement as to "why" he says nothing is speculation.
THAT he says noting confirms that not a single case in ten years made him curious to ask anything of anyone arguing before him. Either his thinking is rigid beyond understanding, or he simply lacks curiosity about legal issues. If these issues were so obvious, we'd never need a Supreme Court.
THAT he says noting confirms that not a single case in ten years made him curious to ask anything of anyone arguing before him. Either his thinking is rigid beyond understanding, or he simply lacks curiosity about legal issues. If these issues were so obvious, we'd never need a Supreme Court.
3
Let's not forget that clerks often write the decisions. Drop out of oral argument and all you are left with is Justice Thomas immediately identifying the position he wants to take and defaulting on the rest of his duties. There is no persuasion, no interaction, no deep thinking -- just a quick decision in favor of the richest and most powerful men. I really wonder why he doesn't just quit; surely his retirement account is stuffed well enough to maintain his RV in perpetuity, and I'm sure there are corporate boards that would love to repay him handsomely for his work on their behalf.
158
...the Monsanto board of directors perhaps!
Why quit when his job is so easy?
What do we expect him to ask? "do I look like Scalia?" "you talking to me?" "why are you talking to me when you can talk to Scalia?"
6
Perhaps Justice Thomas is listening to other speakers and carefully considering what they say. Or others have asked the questions that he felt were necessary. I agree with the last sentence of the article and I wish that he would be more vocal when the Court is sitting.
Hah, he is sleeping or playing cards or passing notes to Scalia. This has been often noted. Mostly he is sleeping.
3
Why should Justice Thomas ask a question? He has already made up his mind ahead of time. In fact, given the cases that the Roberts' Court has tackled, it is very apparent that they reflect cases where the Justices have the ability to change age old precedent the current abysmal majority dislike. It's really become quite a sham.
8
There used to be a saying that If the psychiatrist says more words than the patient, then the psychiatrist is the patient. Will the Supreme Court session be worth the money if ustice Thomas says something? He is not my favorite justice and I sure don't like his prescriptions but Justice Thomas has made important contributions to the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court. He has imported once outré conservative ideas, about such issues as gun rights under the Second Amendment and deregulation of political campaigns, into the mainstream. Scalia wrote District of Columbia v. Heller, which restricted gun control, and Kennedy wrote Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which undermined decades of campaign-finance law, but Justice Thomas was an intellectual Godfather of both decisions. Sometimes people talk to make themselves feel better, maybe not so Thomas.
Having seen TV coverage of his confirmation hearings, having heard some of his views on issues, having read some of his legal reasoning and having noted his propensity to just tag along with the most extreme right-wing voice on the court (usually Scalia), I have to conclude that Justice Thomas comes to each case with his mind closed and therefore has little reason to say anything during oral arguments. For the same reason, quite possibly, he has little reason to read the briefs that the parties submit. Sad but probably true.
10
I have never understood or will understand why the supreme court doesn't have term or age limits. I can almost bet no other country in the world appoints jurists for life. Just one more area where our="greatest country in the World" is all fouled up. The only people who get jobs for life are Popes and Dictators, and if you ask me the members of the SCOTUS are a little bit of both.
4
As much as I dislike Clarence Thomas's politics, I have no problem with his refusal to ask any questions. It may surprise people, but oral argument is mostly just for show. Everything has already been played out on paper.
2
Wow, has this man been affecting US policy for 25 years now? He could be there for another 10 or 15 years. Should one person have such influence over US law for 40 years? There need to be term limits for the Supreme Court.
No questions from the bench for ten years? How can this poor excuse for a Justice possibly know what to ask? He clueless. Never should have been confirmed. This individual is an embarrassment to our justice system. As a lifetime appointment, we're stuck with him; more is the pity for justice and the law.
5
Thomas's explanation for his dearth of query in his position is asinine, enraging and proffers intellectual incuriosity.
Might it simply be his subpar intellect and his concern that talking might confirm that?
Might it simply be his subpar intellect and his concern that talking might confirm that?
3
For his lack of participation he should be thrown off the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court itself decides based on party lines and we need a better system in the country now. Obama will get a chance to nominate another member before his term is up. No doubt it will be a Democrat. Had there been a more neutral court the world would not be in its steady decay. George Bush would not have been elected, Iraq would not have been destroyed and the Middle East would not be in the turmoil it is in now. It was the Bush/Cheney administration that poked a stick in the hornets nest (based on lies) and released the hornets to terrorize the rest of the Middle East and world at large.
2
I am reminded of the saying, that it is better to remain silent and let people suspect you are a fool, than to open your mouth and confirm it without doubt.
6
Some people talk, others listen and think.
In college, many times the smartest and most intelligent students said nothing in class. Most of the talking was done by ignoramuses, intellectual pretenders and preeners, and grade grubbers (sometimes all three in one package).
Blather is never a sign of intelligence. Silence often is.
In college, many times the smartest and most intelligent students said nothing in class. Most of the talking was done by ignoramuses, intellectual pretenders and preeners, and grade grubbers (sometimes all three in one package).
Blather is never a sign of intelligence. Silence often is.
2
It is also the sign of vacuity.
3
While you accurately refer to Trumpian blather, generally, the smartest people in history have more questions than answers.
3
I never attended a Supreme Court session but I've ready many transcripts of oral arguments. The Justices pepper lawyers with questions and then interrupt them before they've articulated an answer. The right asks tough questions for the left and softball questions for the right. The left does the exact opposite. Oral arguments are simply public posturing by the justices during the only time they appear in public as a group. That Justice Thomas skips this nonsense speaks highly of him. In the end, the only thing that counts is how they voted, what's included in their majority, concurring and dissenting opinions (in that order). Justice Thomas has turned into the quiet giant of legal reasoning. Good for him.
5
I can imagine that during the nomination process, Clarence Thomas felt so humiliated that others reassured him by saying something like "Once you get through this, you never have to say another word".
I suspect he decided to take that literally...
I suspect he decided to take that literally...
4
Humiliated or exposed?
1
The responsibility of the judge is not advocacy, thus, questions of advocacy are not necessary nor right. A judge is to hear the arguments, see the evidence and rule accordingly. It is the advocates (lawyers) responsibility to present an argument that is complete and answers all questions. So get a grip and stop being mad because Thomas is a quiet person and a good listener who is black. It seems that most are forgetting that justices are supposed to be impartial and are not charged with proving a case for any side. If the justices were intended to provide advocacy then there would be no need for lawyers to argue a case. This is basic civics guys, get a grip.
3
Mr. Thomas has a closed mind and it's against all social good. It's that simple.
12
That actually may be quite correct. But he was not put on the Court to promote social good. He was put there to read and interpret the Constitution.
And if you don't like the Constitutional social good content, go change it. The rules for doing that are right in that same document.
And if you don't like the Constitutional social good content, go change it. The rules for doing that are right in that same document.
6
@njglea
Well if you can read minds you should contact the DOD or the State Department because they could use your talents.
Well if you can read minds you should contact the DOD or the State Department because they could use your talents.
3
Justice Thomas offers a perfect foil for some serious hypocrisy. People who love Thomas' opinions but hate affirmative action accuse liberals of being racist, while those who hate his opinions, but love affirmative action attack him for being incompetent.
The fact is that both sides are right. He is under-qualified, and affirmative action leads to under-qualified people being promoted almost by definition. The biggest hypocrite, however, has to be Thomas himself, who knows that he only got his position because they needed a black conservative to replace Thurgood Marshall. Since Thomas hates affirmative action, he should resign in protest to the soft bigotry that got him this job.
The fact is that both sides are right. He is under-qualified, and affirmative action leads to under-qualified people being promoted almost by definition. The biggest hypocrite, however, has to be Thomas himself, who knows that he only got his position because they needed a black conservative to replace Thurgood Marshall. Since Thomas hates affirmative action, he should resign in protest to the soft bigotry that got him this job.
6
By Justice Thomas' logic reported in this article, why bother to have lawyers appear to argue their cases or answer the Justice's questions at all? His logic effectively eliminates lawyer's appearances... Continuing this line of thought, why not just computerize past and present judicial decisions, federal and state-wide and eliminate the human element completely? And ultimately, the people have a right to see and hear the Justices and the lawyers who bring cases before the Supreme Court, in action. Visibly and audibly.
2
I've always expected he does not ask questions because he feels insecure as a black man in "white man's world." Some of his court decisions also give one the sense he is not comfortable with equal rights/affirmative action for african americans. And he is married to a white woman. Frankly, I think he is uncomfortable being black.
3
Of all the regrets George H.W. Bush must have in life, I would have to imagine that he privately rues the day he selected this buffoonish, intellectual lightweight to the Supreme Court.
4
I would expect he far more regretted Souter than Thomas
1
On the contrary. H.W. Bush is delighted that Thomas was appointed as a way to stick it to liberals. It is his legacy. A gift that keeps on giving for as long as Thomas remains on the bench. Regret? No. Mirth and merriment? With abundance.
2
Justice Thomas should never have been placed on the court. He was placed on the court because of his race. Worse than his lacking the requisite mental acumen for the job is his utter lack of empathy or understanding of "what it's like" --except when it comes to him --when it is all about him and his bitterness at everything and nothing, everyone and no one.
He doesn't speak because he doesn't have anything to say because he does not care (about anything or anyone but himself).
He doesn't speak because he doesn't have anything to say because he does not care (about anything or anyone but himself).
12
The first time I heard a SCOTUS hearing I was baffled. It took me a long time to figure out that the Justices rudeness and interruptions and refusals to allow the lawyers to answer them fully were not part of a regular "court room process". I eventually worked out for myself the fact that there had been a lot of behind the scenes info changing hands which I was unaware of. Still it is disconcerting for how irrational and wild it seems to be even knowing that the Justices have been reading a lot of information behind the scenes. I understand now why the SCOTUS was so reluctant to allow recordings of the proceedings to be made public.
I will stipulate that Justice Thomas has some legal pedigree which justifies his appointment. That said he has not served the Constitution well and for all of his pedigree I have seen nothing from him that tells me he still has the intellectual horse power that got him that pedigree.
I will stipulate that Justice Thomas has some legal pedigree which justifies his appointment. That said he has not served the Constitution well and for all of his pedigree I have seen nothing from him that tells me he still has the intellectual horse power that got him that pedigree.
4
it is unlikely that he even reads the briefs, and he doesn't need to engage in testimony or debate. His vote is always pre-determined; whatever then most rightwing position is.
4
Marcel Marceau got a lot accomplished by being quiet.
Thomas may have something here...
Thomas may have something here...
1
Perhaps Justice Scalia won't allow Justice Thomas to talk. He has always been Scalia's puppet.
5
This is one of the few instances where justices should be impeachable. Total dereliction of duty and contempt for the purpose of the Court: to discern different points of view through spirited exchange.
150
Justices are impeachable. And we have two candidates on the SCOTUS right now. It has been done before and should be done again.
1
I was genuinely surprised to learn that the "purpose of the Court [is] to discern different points of view." I was astonished to see that more than 90 persons labor under this same belief.
"He has a distinctive legal philosophy ..."
Yeah, anything Scalia says, he says it, too.
(Tip of the hat to "How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying.")
Yeah, anything Scalia says, he says it, too.
(Tip of the hat to "How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying.")
3
Clarence Thomas retired on full pay for life many years ago.
8
Most everyone has been in the situation of being in a class, lecture etc. where they feel that the question they are going to ask is stupid and they will look foolish.
Thomas has probably felt this way for a decade. And for good reason. He is a fool.
Thomas has probably felt this way for a decade. And for good reason. He is a fool.
7
The man is a complete loser. What a travesty he managed to get on the court
6
When a Bush nominates you, the nation is in trouble.
The Court will hear the very important University of Texas affirmative action case this term. Justice Thomas, a 1972 graduate of Holy Cross College, was recruited by Dean Rev. John E. Brooks along with nineteen other black young men after the assassination of Martin Luther King. This may not have been strictly an affirmative action program because Rev. Brooks chose men he said met the college admission standards. Nonetheless if Rev. Brooks had not traveled tirelessly down the east coast to recruit these young men they would not have gone to Holy Cross and their lives would have been very different. Furthermore, if Father Brooks had not recruited these young men, given its history 19 young white men would have attended in their place. Many black graduates of the Holy Cross Class of 1972 have had extraordinary careers. Despite his history on the Court as an opponent of affirmative action Justice Thomas benefited by special treatment because of his race. Therefore, he should recuse himself from this or any other affirmative action case that come before the course. If he does not, it would be prudent for other Justices of ask Justice Thomas what effect his special treatment by Father Brooks and his Holy Cross experience have had on his life and those of his fellow black members of the Class of 1972.
3
Maybe like Ben Carson?
3
We have a saying in Germany, where I grew up, which translates losely like this:
"If you'd just kept your mouth shut, nobody would have known what a fool you are". I think Thomas is aware of this and acts accordingly,
"If you'd just kept your mouth shut, nobody would have known what a fool you are". I think Thomas is aware of this and acts accordingly,
4
I posted this on the wrong comment earlier. Do you suppose, AMM, that he is like Ben Carson? Yikes!
I enjoy imagining that – if there is an afterlife, where our individual spirits can come face to face with those who have gone before us – Justice Thurgood Marshall is waiting patiently to administer Clarance Thomas the excoriation he so richly deserves.
We all have much to account for – certainly, I personally owe more than most – but Thomas’s squandering of the opportunity of a lifetime is unique in its shameful extreme. What a horrible, stunning disappointment this man has been.
We all have much to account for – certainly, I personally owe more than most – but Thomas’s squandering of the opportunity of a lifetime is unique in its shameful extreme. What a horrible, stunning disappointment this man has been.
263
And Ruth Vader Ginsburgh has not ?
2
Just because H.W. or the Senate may have thought they were given a Thurgood Marshall mandate, Thomas was not, it was not part of his oath. Are Justice Roberts, Scalia or Kennedy going to get the same heavenly "excoriation"?
Thank you. What a disgrace he is and why, of all people, was he chosen? Oh, so that he could do absolutely nothing for the African American community. He benefited from EEOC, but now sits in Justice Marshall's seat to make sure no one else has that opportunity. He doesn't speak because he knows nothing, so he is led around by the conservatives.
1
I think he does have a point. A listen to the audio recordings of the SCOTUS cases reveals near constant interruptions by the justices. Sometimes the lawyers can barely get a word in edgewise. Pure cacophony.
But 10 years without a single question seems like overkill. And his clearly kneejerk attitudes heard in his speechmaking do little to keep up appearances of being impartial.
But 10 years without a single question seems like overkill. And his clearly kneejerk attitudes heard in his speechmaking do little to keep up appearances of being impartial.
1
If Thomas were a lawyer in more than just name only, his opinions might be valuable. But, he is an onlooker, not a legal expert, and his ideas bear no reason to be listened to..........
4
This article is a cheap shot. Listening is not "disengagement from this aspect of the Court's work," Mr. Liptak. Liberals (and the NY Times) hate Justice Thomas, and this is about the only thing they can attack him on - and they do so relentlessly.
While I don't always agree with Justice Thomas, he is 100% correct on this. The only regret I have is that one justice has the courtesy and decorum to listen to the advocates (the litigants' attorneys) it gives more time for the loud-mouth justices to derail the arguments by advocating their preconceived stances.
While I don't always agree with Justice Thomas, he is 100% correct on this. The only regret I have is that one justice has the courtesy and decorum to listen to the advocates (the litigants' attorneys) it gives more time for the loud-mouth justices to derail the arguments by advocating their preconceived stances.
1
If one buys his argument that that's what all judges should do, then he's right and all the other judges who have ever served on the Supreme Court are wrong and he's right.
He's not right.
He's not right.
5
What possible good could come from Justice Thomas asking a question? The only question he might have is, "How would a right-wing conservative vote on this issue?" And his staff can answer that. The phenomenon of Thomas reflects a cynical move by George HW Bush to show that race has nothing to do with diversity. He knew Thomas would vote conservative on every issue or he would not have appointed him. At the same time, he knew liberals would be tongue-tied on the appointment, and they were. In any case, Thomas's votes are pre-ordained: He will vote conservative. No questions or thinking necessary.
3
This point has probably been made elsewhere in these comments, but anyway: Justice Brennan was also well-known for asking virtually no questions--he did not think oral argument added anything to the decision process. Nobody (including the New York Times) made much of that, but, of course, he was not a black conservative.
76
Unfortunately, this is an inconvenient truth for this board.
1
I pulled up two of the biggest cases during Brennan's term - Terry and Roe - and yep, he asked questions in both of them. Would Thomas have remained silent?
2
Justice Brennan asked hundreds of questions per decade. Judge Brennan's reticence is off by orders of magnitude.
2
Would the media or other opinion leaders ever be brave enough to even consider that the lack of questions could stem from stupidity?
1
Associate Justice Thomas is and has been an embarrassment to the Court and its history. The late Associate Justice Thurgood Marshall would be woefully disappointed in the second African American to hold one of the nine most prestigious and distinguished seats in the American legal system. Thomas' legacy on the Court will be silence, repeated judicial disengagement, and petulant and eternal bitterness.
4
I for one don't understand the oral argument practice where lawyers must be grilled by the Justices. This is not a moot court competition. Justices are there to listen to and make decision; everything they say gives out their prejudices or biases. What is not a part of rule making or judicial ruling is a waste of time and a harmful distraction.
1
Could it be because the only question he's ever wanted to ask was "How long 'till lunch?"
1
This article reminded me of something we read every year at Passover,
" And for the simple son who does not know how to ask a question......"
" And for the simple son who does not know how to ask a question......"
1
I'm sorry, but I've always assumed that this is attributable to the simple fact that he's not that bright -- especially in view of his qualifications rating when he was nominated to the bench and his voting record since, which is entirely predictable.
This may not be the best analogy, but because I'm not a lawyer it's the best one I have available: his behavior seems tantamount to serving as a member of a dissertation committee at a doctoral dissertation defense and posing no questions to the doctoral candidate -- which is inconceivable. It's called a "defense" for good reason: the parallels are striking. The argumentation and proposed conclusion are already fully contained in the written document, which the committee has read closely, and the public presentation of the dissertation by the doctoral candidate is simply a reduced version of the evidence and arguments contained in the written document. But this is the only opportunity the committee has to probe the arguments made by the doctoral candidate in support of the conclusions s/he would like to have added to the collective received wisdom on the topic of the dissertation -- and if necessary, to interact among themselves in arriving at an assessment of its merits. If a member of a dissertation committee does not have a single question to ask, one can only assume that s/he hasn't done her/his homework or has already made up his/her mind.
Based on my experience, I can only assume the same is true in Thomas's case.
This may not be the best analogy, but because I'm not a lawyer it's the best one I have available: his behavior seems tantamount to serving as a member of a dissertation committee at a doctoral dissertation defense and posing no questions to the doctoral candidate -- which is inconceivable. It's called a "defense" for good reason: the parallels are striking. The argumentation and proposed conclusion are already fully contained in the written document, which the committee has read closely, and the public presentation of the dissertation by the doctoral candidate is simply a reduced version of the evidence and arguments contained in the written document. But this is the only opportunity the committee has to probe the arguments made by the doctoral candidate in support of the conclusions s/he would like to have added to the collective received wisdom on the topic of the dissertation -- and if necessary, to interact among themselves in arriving at an assessment of its merits. If a member of a dissertation committee does not have a single question to ask, one can only assume that s/he hasn't done her/his homework or has already made up his/her mind.
Based on my experience, I can only assume the same is true in Thomas's case.
1
Not asking a question in ten years is the one smart thing Thomas has chosen to (not) do from the bench. He was never qualified to sit on the SCOTUS in the first place and in his first few years on the bench that incompetency was borne out by the questions he did ask.
The only role suitable for Thomas at this point is to continue to the one he grown comfortable in and that's to serve as Scalia's quiet, well behaved lap dog.
The only role suitable for Thomas at this point is to continue to the one he grown comfortable in and that's to serve as Scalia's quiet, well behaved lap dog.
9
Perhaps we are all better off if Clarence Thomas NEVER asks a question.......
1
Clarence Thomas does not ask questions because he does not understand what is being discussed. His clerks will simply write an opinion based on "what the founders intended" in the late 1700s. That's the extent of his capacity to grasp issues.
5
Throw the bum out!
8
When you represent special interest groups your mind is made up BEFORE the arguments begin, so why prolong the session with needless questions. It doesn't change the outcome. I do think he should be required to wear a large "MONSANTO" patch on his robe, though.
10
I'm not a fan of his positions but he is correct. The details of the cases are in the pleadings not the few minutes of oral arguments. Oral arguments are kabuki not substance. It would be worth polling the justices as to whether they were ever moved to alter their views by the banter between Justices and lawyers.
59
Actually, it may or may not be the pleadings. It's the briefs from both sides and any "friend of the court briefs." It also includes "the record below" which must be provided based on the SCOTUS rules. What the record entails really depends on the posture of the case when it reaches the high court.
Having said that I would imagine that Justices are at times swayed by the litigants' answers to their own questions and questions of their fellow Justices. So one Justice being mute doesn't prevent him or her from learning from answers to others' questions.
Still your point is well taken. There is a mountain of written material in each case. The argument is the tip of the iceberg.
Indeed, in some lower Fedral Court cases, the judges don't always allow oral argument.
Many of the commenters on this article don't let ignorance of the facts get in the way of their opinions. Amazing.
Having said that I would imagine that Justices are at times swayed by the litigants' answers to their own questions and questions of their fellow Justices. So one Justice being mute doesn't prevent him or her from learning from answers to others' questions.
Still your point is well taken. There is a mountain of written material in each case. The argument is the tip of the iceberg.
Indeed, in some lower Fedral Court cases, the judges don't always allow oral argument.
Many of the commenters on this article don't let ignorance of the facts get in the way of their opinions. Amazing.
1
What a privilege. What a waste.
6
I completely agree.
Thank goodness Obama is finally leaving.
Thank goodness Obama is finally leaving.
4
Mr. Justice Thomas and his wife, Ginny, seem to be a royal Freudian mess. George HW Bush said he was the best qualified person in America to sit on the bench. He clearly bears a grudge from his confirmation hearing -- i think many of us do -- and he isn't, after all these years, a brilliant legal mind. Many suspect he doesn't ask questions because he already made up his mind and he is not open to suggestion. Others think he's afraid to embarrass himself. In any event, We, the People, require a democrat to be in the oval office when Justice Thomas steps down.
11
By now I think he's just being ornery.
3
"he is not much interested in compromise, persuasion or coalition building." Sounds alot like a Republican.
4
Compromise, persuasion and coalition building occurred during the drafting of the Constitution. The result is the Constitution. What is there now to compromise about, what coalition building? The thing is done.
John Xavier III, Uh, a lot changes in 200 years.
1
I have never read any document, newspaper article, or anything but pure fiction without having some question somewhere along the line, and even in a novel some passages remain unclear. Most of the time these questions can be ignored and simply remain as annoyances. But there are times when the answers can change outcomes. Reading legal documents, of whatever stripe, are surely in that category, for if they were not, they would not be so long and replete with obscure jargon.
I can only marvel that Justice Thomas can be so sure of his conclusions that he needs no further clarification of questions unique to himself.
I can only marvel that Justice Thomas can be so sure of his conclusions that he needs no further clarification of questions unique to himself.
7
Since the Court's public "debate" apparently is a key vehicle for Justices to sway others on the Court, one wonders why Justice Thomas does not recognize that his "independent" streak would actually accomplish a lot more if he spoke out and tried to bring other Justices along to his view and reasoning.
Also tragic is, as the author points out, that Justice Thomas' unique background (at least on the current Court) and courtroom silence, deprive the Court and America from hearing a divergent perspective (even when I and many others might disagree with what he says).
He is depriving all of us of the enrichment an active use of his perspective would bring (in addition to emasculating his reasoning, in terms of its judicial impact).
Also tragic is, as the author points out, that Justice Thomas' unique background (at least on the current Court) and courtroom silence, deprive the Court and America from hearing a divergent perspective (even when I and many others might disagree with what he says).
He is depriving all of us of the enrichment an active use of his perspective would bring (in addition to emasculating his reasoning, in terms of its judicial impact).
5
Clarence Thomas is the poster boy for why the Supreme Court should not be a lifetime appointment. He is generally considered to be one of the least competent justices in the last century and adds nothing to the judicial debate. It would be nice to see a Constitutional Amendment to limit Supreme Court terms to 18 years with full retirement available at the end. Stagger them so there is regular turn-over instead of everyone holding their breath hoping a justice stays on the bench well past his or her reasonable retirement date.
17
Do you have any idea how the GOP would abuse that change to further hamstring our government?
The picture of Justice Thomas seems to say it all about him.
4
Justice Thomas is simply exemplifying what most litigators already know and what the judges I worked for always told me: you win on your papers. Oral argument is a great place to clarify or emphasize certain portions of your briefs (or, at a lower court, to help make a record for appeal), but at this stage it is more grandstanding than anything else.
I'm reasonably confident you can count on one hand the number of times in the last ten years an opinion in a high-profile case was swayed by oral argument at the Supreme Court -- and have fingers to spare.
I'm reasonably confident you can count on one hand the number of times in the last ten years an opinion in a high-profile case was swayed by oral argument at the Supreme Court -- and have fingers to spare.
51
How could one know? The point of orals is to settle the points that the papers did not settle for the justices. Hence all the attempts to read tea leaves by parsing the questions and where when and how the interrupt the answers.
The article has a link to the one of the last times Thomas spoke: a case on cross burning. His comments seemed to move the Court. SO, one never knows what may influence , but where is his silence getting him.
1
oral argument on SCOTUS recently is all about persuading kennedy in a close case. this persuading is done by the other justices, in the form of their questioning. the rest of the questioning is just an occasion to show off, or show up other justices. seems thomas doesn't want to play this game
Clarence Thomas' silence reminds me of one of the Four Sons discussed in the Passover Seder: The Fourth Son is the one who doesn't know how to ask.
"He already 'knows' everything... he will never admit a fault. On the contrary, our attempts to educate him will meet with ridicule. As he rejects our insights one after another, the fruitlessness of our efforts makes us appear foolish."
"The fourth son is apathetic. He's not thinking and he doesn't much care...because apathy can be very easily turned into hate and rejection. That's why Judaism says apathy is an aspect of evil."
"He already 'knows' everything... he will never admit a fault. On the contrary, our attempts to educate him will meet with ridicule. As he rejects our insights one after another, the fruitlessness of our efforts makes us appear foolish."
"The fourth son is apathetic. He's not thinking and he doesn't much care...because apathy can be very easily turned into hate and rejection. That's why Judaism says apathy is an aspect of evil."
8
Perhaps he doesn't ask because his mind's always made up before the briefs are read and the oral arguments start, as evidenced by his utter predictability.
From way before Citizens United to the upcoming case on fair share, we all know how he'll vote and what he'll write.
From way before Citizens United to the upcoming case on fair share, we all know how he'll vote and what he'll write.
9
I hear that Supreme Court decisions are based entirely on written submissions from both sides, so the verbal stuff is just showmanship anyway. Is that true?
2
He's self conscious since he's not at the level of his peers. The more he talks, the more he would give himself away as one of the worst to sit on the bench in modern history.
10
Would acknowledging his wife's lobbying and recusing himself accordingly be impolite too?
9
I speculate that the real reason why Justice Thomas doesn't ask questions during oral argument is that extemporaneous questioning is not his strength. He may fear saying things that are poorly put and would not do justice to his position, invite criticism, embarrass him and/or reflect poorly on the court. (He also may feel reticent from having been burnt by attacks on him made at the vicious and contentious confirmation hearings, for which I don't blame him.)
However, these reasons, understandably human as they are, do not get around the fact that the inability of a Supreme Court justice to participate in oral argument is a serious limitation. It's hard to imagine there aren't points brought up in the briefs that he wouldn't benefit from getting clarified, rather than his just passively going by those in their written form, and listening to what the other justices bring up.
Too, it's important for him to be able to hash those things out with the advocates and his colleagues at the time argument is made. It's also important that the country hear what his thoughts and beliefs are, beyond what can be found in his finalized written opinions.
The Supreme Court has too few people, and carries too much responsibility, for any of its justices not to have the full set of skills.
However, these reasons, understandably human as they are, do not get around the fact that the inability of a Supreme Court justice to participate in oral argument is a serious limitation. It's hard to imagine there aren't points brought up in the briefs that he wouldn't benefit from getting clarified, rather than his just passively going by those in their written form, and listening to what the other justices bring up.
Too, it's important for him to be able to hash those things out with the advocates and his colleagues at the time argument is made. It's also important that the country hear what his thoughts and beliefs are, beyond what can be found in his finalized written opinions.
The Supreme Court has too few people, and carries too much responsibility, for any of its justices not to have the full set of skills.
176
"He may fear saying things that are poorly put and would not do justice to his position, invite criticism, embarrass him and/or reflect poorly on the court." In other words, he's not qualified.
3
He is afraid that if he opens his mouth he will demonstrate just how ignorant he is. So he just sits there and plays the role of Scalia's mini-me. He was totally unqualified and unfit to sit on the Supreme Court when Bush Sr. appointed him to pacify the extreme right wing of the Republican party. What an insult to the Supreme Court and the entire nation to appoint him to replace the great Justice Thurgood Marshall.
12
The victory of Republican George H.W. Bush over Democrat Michael Dukakis in the 1988 presidential contest resulted in Clarence Thomas’s appointment to the Supreme Court. The lesson: Vote Democratic.
9
Yeah and don't forget who H.W.'s daddy traded with during WWII (his name was Adolf and the Bush's involvement with the manufacturer of phosgene gas for the camps. Clarence represents their cynicism and contempt for affirmative action.
3
Justice Thomas does not have to talk because anyone who wants to "hear" him need only to read his opinions.
Over the years, much has been made about the refusal of Justice Thomas to speak during oral arguments, but the commentary has been largely silent on those justices who talk too much.
I often see Justice Thomas in my neighborhood, and I promise the next time I see him, I will ask him to state his current reason for his non participation in oral arguments.
Over the years, much has been made about the refusal of Justice Thomas to speak during oral arguments, but the commentary has been largely silent on those justices who talk too much.
I often see Justice Thomas in my neighborhood, and I promise the next time I see him, I will ask him to state his current reason for his non participation in oral arguments.
Be careful, you might get slammed to the ground by a Deputy US Marshall.
I like Justice Thomas but if he's not getting involved it's time to retire. This life time appointment nonsense needs to be reversed. No more then 8years is long enough. These justices are not gods.
4
He is still pondering how Anita Hill tried to shame him prior to his undeserved appointment.
3
Anita Hill didn't 'shame' him. Professor Hill spoke the truth. Clarence Thomas shamed himself.
4
I may disagree with the man's politics. I may not feel that he belongs on the Supreme Court. However, I do think he has a good point when he says that it's not helpful to ask "that many questions." Interruptions can make people lose their train of thought, lessen the impact of an important point, and are rude unless the statement is less than clear or it strays from the main point of the argument. There are times when I have felt that Scalia is putting on a show to entertain others and not being respectful of their time or their hard work in preparing the brief.
I still think that Clarence Thomas owes Anita Hill an apology, is in favor of policies that I disagree with, and should not have been selected to sit on SCOTUS. But he is entitled to do what he sees fit when lawyers are arguing a case in front of the court. If it's silence that's fine.
I still think that Clarence Thomas owes Anita Hill an apology, is in favor of policies that I disagree with, and should not have been selected to sit on SCOTUS. But he is entitled to do what he sees fit when lawyers are arguing a case in front of the court. If it's silence that's fine.
2
"Entitled"?
But "conservatives" (applied loosely, when speaking of radical reactionaries, of course) are supposed to be against "entitlements."
Surely, you would not wish the man to be untrue to his deepest [if any] principles?
But "conservatives" (applied loosely, when speaking of radical reactionaries, of course) are supposed to be against "entitlements."
Surely, you would not wish the man to be untrue to his deepest [if any] principles?
1
Clarence Thomas is one of the best Constitutional thinkers the Court has had. Just because people don't like his opinions and decisions shouldn't lead to the vitriol and abuse heaped on him on these posts.
By the way, for those who bring up Anita Hill, let's start with Jennifer Flowers, and go on to Monica, skipping over tens if not hundreds. Yeah, and that guy was, like Thomas is, at the pinnacle of the government, and nobody on this side of the aisle peeped. He is now a senior world statesman.
And just by the by, Ms. Hill is a fanatical left wing zealot, and ideologically as far from Thomas as could possibly be imagined. She must seethe every day that he is on the Court .... and she is not.
By the way, for those who bring up Anita Hill, let's start with Jennifer Flowers, and go on to Monica, skipping over tens if not hundreds. Yeah, and that guy was, like Thomas is, at the pinnacle of the government, and nobody on this side of the aisle peeped. He is now a senior world statesman.
And just by the by, Ms. Hill is a fanatical left wing zealot, and ideologically as far from Thomas as could possibly be imagined. She must seethe every day that he is on the Court .... and she is not.
3
Fair and balanced.
2
Bill's escapades seem to be all American compared to the evidence known about Mr. Thomas' sexual proclivities. But then again, I'm just a Puritan from New England.
What a juvenile attempt to "coax" Justice Clarence "Uncle" Thomas to speak from the bench by offering him faint praise as an enticement. Everything he might ask is clearly stated in his opinion writing, and very little of it - VERY LITTLE - offers anything approaching meaningfully insightful observations on the law or the concept of justice. Just as well he sit there stone-faced and keep his mouth shut. He has neither the temperament nor judicial strength to sway his more thoughtful and forceful colleagues so better to leave the questions to those who actually have something MEANINGFUL to ask and/or say.
1
Does he even read the briefs? Just another example of America's decline. I wish we could remove him from the Court. He's been given a responsibility that's critical to the proper functioning of our government, and he's simply not up to the task.
1
He is removable via impeachment, but it doesn't seem that he has done anything to warrant that.
2
Not only does he not speak, he apparently doesn't think either. His opinions exactly mirror Justice Scalia's. Everyone knew he was unqualified during his confirmation hearings but he was waved through. His confirmation is a smear on the confirmation process.
6
"Waved"? That's a breathtakingly incorrect description of what actually happened.
My guess is, Lois, you were not born yet.
My guess is, Lois, you were not born yet.
2
While his silence is unusual, it is neither good nor bad and relevant only to court watchers who like to read the tea leaves at oral argument.
The Justice is an intelligent man. Let his opinions and votes speak for him. since I don't agree with most of his reasoning or contentions, I am not sure I need to hear more from him.
The Justice is an intelligent man. Let his opinions and votes speak for him. since I don't agree with most of his reasoning or contentions, I am not sure I need to hear more from him.
3
Has anyone considered that much of what Thomas is saying about oral argument may actually be true? It may be a waste of effort? Has any case in the last 25 years of his tenure seen anything pivotal come out in oral argument? Have the issue been clarified in oral argument?
2
That is actually a very percipient and germane question; thank you so much for raising it.
Any SCotUS or other legal scholars care to weigh in with specific examples -- if any can be found?
Any SCotUS or other legal scholars care to weigh in with specific examples -- if any can be found?
Let's see...Thomas agreeing with Scalia a majority of the time is appalling and a lack of judicial skill. Karan or Sotomayer agreeing with each other or Ginsburg a majority of the time is A-ok and highly skilled.
Got it.
Got it.
5
A question is important only if it is in the interest of understanding the situation and assisting in providing a decision. Many attorneys and judges have offered self-serving questions to promote themselves. I'm glad Justice Thomas has not exhibited the latter behavior.
1
Justice Thomas was appointed by George H.W. Bush. Yet another reason why the election of former Secretary of State and former Senator Clinton is imperative. Several appointments will be made over the next eight years and the country cannot afford conservative justices with regressive social positions which will fundamentally affect the nation's domestic and foreign policies.
5
I was born and spent many years in the South and eight years in Savannah, where Justice Thomas hails from. I don't agree with his world view, but I understand elements of his experience. I was struck by his recounting in newspapers and his biography of how he was called down in school for speaking Geechee - a dialect made up of English, French and various African languages - that once was common among descendants of slaves in coastal NC, SC and Georgia. Mr. Liptak says he was "teased" for his dialect, but I think that word completely misses the power structures inherent in language even today. Race and bias are deeply wrapped up in language just as class and bias are. Here we're talking about a world where you could be lynched just for saying the wrong thing. Growing up as Thomas did in a world where those racial power structures held powerful sway, he was more than keenly aware of the dangers of both being black and speaking black when confronting that structure. People digest those experiences differently and I think his response was to avoid the question altogether by not making his language an issue. He chose another path - silence. I agree that the world might benefit from hearing more of his thought processes through questioning, but I've read his explanation of why he continues not asking questions - because if he listens, ultimately the answer will be revealed - and it's somewhat zen.
5
I agree with the comment that it is difficult to get past Anita Hill when discussing this man. That said, lawyers are PAID, for the most part, to be what an elderly neighbor of mine describes as, 'fancy talkers' and Mr. Thomas is well aware of that. Unfortunately, this supreme court seems to delight in ending the free speech of ordinary citizens via it's bent toward the corporate clans via Citizens United (an atrocious legal fiction) and now through their eagerness to further erode citizens rights to have a voice through corporate arbitration. I personally think it's wonderful that Mr. Thomas remain silent. Anybody else who was employed would get fired for such a stunt of course, but perhaps it results in less harm for we, the people, if he keeps his opinions to himself..
1
At this point Justice Thomas has dug himself a deep hole. Even if he were to ask a critical deeply probing insightful question, the news would be that he broke his vow of silence rather than that he brought light to the case
1
He has already decided how to vote and that is determined by his ideology and Scalia. He doesn't want new information to clutter his mind. He doesn't care how a case is argued. I can tell you how he'll vote 99% of the time.
3
This critique of Justice Thomas strikes me as ungenuine.
If you disagree with his opinions, attack the argument, not the person.
If you disagree with his opinions, attack the argument, not the person.
5
This is not an attack on the Justice. It is a discernment of they way he either does or does not discern facts and information pertinent to the argument being presented
The last line of the article reads:
"Were Justice Thomas to talk, people would listen."
Nobody is being "attack"ed here.
Isn't it interesting that one would perceive "attack"s where there are none?
Feeling defensive about something, are we?
"Were Justice Thomas to talk, people would listen."
Nobody is being "attack"ed here.
Isn't it interesting that one would perceive "attack"s where there are none?
Feeling defensive about something, are we?
You seem not to discern you are the one that used the word in you presentation.
A "decade-long vow of silence takes monkish dedication and a certain stamina?" Don't pander! I think Thomas was learned how to sleep with his eyes open. What a waste of a SC seat and surely an argument to change the "for life" appointment. I wish I could earn a hefty salary and never do anything.
2
Using my own life as a counter point to Justice Thomas's view on questions is what this is about. As I go about my daily life, work, home & family, recreation with others, cultural events, films, concerts, plays, attending my worship of choice, I find my questions are concerned about what I call reality testing. This means I have reached a point in my own comprehension to where I am no longer sure what the intent or actual happenings around me are interpreted more by my personal bias and not the content of the outer experience. I know I can misinterpret and not understand certain experiences of my daily life without asking questions to clarify.
Often I find when others answer my questions that I understand the content of their meaning and I can take that as part of my discernment of how I respond or how I live my life.
If I went through my life with never reality testing I doubt that I could keep my family, job and myself in a workable condition. In short, I would reach a point of operating my life from completely my own experience and view of life and not be influenced for better or worse by the rest of human kind. I find this absolutely untenable for myself. I know I am never the one with the right answer 100% of the time.
Where does Justice Thomas place himself in my definition of how I manage my daily experiences? Does he believe he is always 100% correct in the interpretation of Supreme Court arguments of the Constitution, civil and criminal laws?
Often I find when others answer my questions that I understand the content of their meaning and I can take that as part of my discernment of how I respond or how I live my life.
If I went through my life with never reality testing I doubt that I could keep my family, job and myself in a workable condition. In short, I would reach a point of operating my life from completely my own experience and view of life and not be influenced for better or worse by the rest of human kind. I find this absolutely untenable for myself. I know I am never the one with the right answer 100% of the time.
Where does Justice Thomas place himself in my definition of how I manage my daily experiences? Does he believe he is always 100% correct in the interpretation of Supreme Court arguments of the Constitution, civil and criminal laws?
3
Justice Thomas is a constant reminder of how cynical the Reagan Revolutionaries were. They would put antigovernment people in charge of governing agencies. Say, someone who was actively opposed to government providing affordable housing would be put in charge of the agency set up for precisely that reason. Or, someone who is antagonistic towards civil rights advocacy would be assigned a role to supposedly 'protect' those rights. All the better if the left's short-sighted worship of identity politics could be used against them. Thomas allowed himself to be used. Maybe he himself doesn't know why. I suspect deep down inside of the quiet justice is a smoldering anger and rage. I don't think he likes himself very much. He's been badly used by very cynical people and has no one but himself to blame. Tragic.
4
Justice Thomas is hardly the first Justice to not ask questions from the bench. Until after WWII, most of the Justices on the Court didn't ask questions of attorneys during oral argument.
As an attorney, I find oral arguments rarely shift the opinion of a judge. They usually rely on the written briefs submitted and often have made their decision before any attorney utters a word in the Court room. Every so often oral argument matters because it allows an attorney to either clarify their position or respond directly to an argument presented by the other side. More often than not, oral argument is mere formality.
As an attorney, I find oral arguments rarely shift the opinion of a judge. They usually rely on the written briefs submitted and often have made their decision before any attorney utters a word in the Court room. Every so often oral argument matters because it allows an attorney to either clarify their position or respond directly to an argument presented by the other side. More often than not, oral argument is mere formality.
2
You cannot possibly know if argument shifted a judge's position unless you knew that position ahead of time. All of your words are pure personal surmise presented as fact. As an attorney one would think you would have some appreciation of the absurdity of your statements and their false premise.
You bring up this fact constantly. I wonder if you would do the same if a Justice were among the liberal side of the Court. Doubt it.
A better way to demonstrate your belief that Justice Thomas is inadequate would be to present an analysis of his opinions and a discussion of why you think he is incorrect, intellectually dishonest or whatever.
But you are unable or unwilling to do that. Instead you just give your unthinking readers a tabloid like morsel to regurgitate at book clubs, cocktail parties and the like.
But what should we expect from a publication that thought a lead story on Marco Rubio's footwear was important and newsworthy?
A better way to demonstrate your belief that Justice Thomas is inadequate would be to present an analysis of his opinions and a discussion of why you think he is incorrect, intellectually dishonest or whatever.
But you are unable or unwilling to do that. Instead you just give your unthinking readers a tabloid like morsel to regurgitate at book clubs, cocktail parties and the like.
But what should we expect from a publication that thought a lead story on Marco Rubio's footwear was important and newsworthy?
5
I am sure there are many Liberals who watch the Bill Cosby debacle and wish it was Clarence Thomas. Not so. Still waiting for an apology. Thomas has met the expectations of those who supported his nomination. Same can be said for the Liberal justices. Note: Thurgood Marshal was an idiot.
3
Thomas took Thurgood Marshall's seat on SCOTUS.
All one need do is read Thomas's majority opinion in Connick v. Thompson to know the mettle of the man.
In that case Thompson, a black man, served 20 years in Angola prison in Louisiana for a murder he didn't commit based on deliberate suppression of key exculpatory evidence by the New Orleans district attorney's office of the infamous Harry Connick. Under the SCOTUS Brady case, district attorneys are required to turn over exculpatory evidence to criminal defendants before trial.
After his release from prison Thompson sued Connick and the other corrupt district attorneys who knowingly obtained his wrongful conviction and was awarded $14 million dollars.
On appeal to SCOTUS the court reversed 5/4 with the conservative mandarins making up the majority, and relieving Connick's office of liability for deliberately suppressing the exculpatory evidence that was later used to obtain Thompson's release from prison.
In a similar vein was his vote with the majority in infamous Shelby County case gutting the Voting Rights Act.
I guess he showed some sensitivity to the plight of the "discrete and insular minority" that are black folk in our country in the Virginia cross burning case,
but since then he appears to have bent over backwards in writing or joining jurisprudentially specious opinions that perpetuate injustice against blacks in the criminal justice and voting rights arena.
One of the worst justices ever on SCOTUS.
All one need do is read Thomas's majority opinion in Connick v. Thompson to know the mettle of the man.
In that case Thompson, a black man, served 20 years in Angola prison in Louisiana for a murder he didn't commit based on deliberate suppression of key exculpatory evidence by the New Orleans district attorney's office of the infamous Harry Connick. Under the SCOTUS Brady case, district attorneys are required to turn over exculpatory evidence to criminal defendants before trial.
After his release from prison Thompson sued Connick and the other corrupt district attorneys who knowingly obtained his wrongful conviction and was awarded $14 million dollars.
On appeal to SCOTUS the court reversed 5/4 with the conservative mandarins making up the majority, and relieving Connick's office of liability for deliberately suppressing the exculpatory evidence that was later used to obtain Thompson's release from prison.
In a similar vein was his vote with the majority in infamous Shelby County case gutting the Voting Rights Act.
I guess he showed some sensitivity to the plight of the "discrete and insular minority" that are black folk in our country in the Virginia cross burning case,
but since then he appears to have bent over backwards in writing or joining jurisprudentially specious opinions that perpetuate injustice against blacks in the criminal justice and voting rights arena.
One of the worst justices ever on SCOTUS.
3
When asked before about his silence on the Court Justice Thomas trotted out the race card just as he did when he was unfortunately approved for this post. Apparently race is only an issue with him when it benefits him. As to his new claim that he's being courteous, that is extremely hard to believe.
1
Every lawyer who has ever argued an appeal will tell you that the best oral argument is made to a "hot" bench. A hot bench is characterized by vigorous questioning from the judges, sometimes starting the second after you've introduced yourself, before you've even made an opening statement. A hot bench enables the lawyer to see which judge is on which side of the issue; to see which issues the judges find most vexing; to (sometimes) discern the "swing" judge (or judges) and devote extra time to making sure they are satisfied.
Similarly, appellate lawyers will tell you there's nothing worse than a "cold" bench. You make your argument for 10-20 minutes (depending on time allotted), and the judges just sit there. No questions = no insights. You know no more about the likely result in your case than when you walked into the courtroom.
Thomas is simply wrong about just letting lawyers "argue their case." Judges have read the briefs; they already know which side of an issue the lawyer is on. The whole purpose of oral argument is to allow the judges to test the limits of the propositions the lawyer has set forth in writing. Otherwise, it's not an "argument," it's just a speech.
The only reason Thomas can say nothing is because all of his colleagues don't follow his lead. I was there on a case in 1999; Thomas said nothing, but Scalia, Ginsburg, Rehnquist, Kennedy and Souter had plenty to ask. THAT's what lawyers want, Justice Thomas; just ask them.
Similarly, appellate lawyers will tell you there's nothing worse than a "cold" bench. You make your argument for 10-20 minutes (depending on time allotted), and the judges just sit there. No questions = no insights. You know no more about the likely result in your case than when you walked into the courtroom.
Thomas is simply wrong about just letting lawyers "argue their case." Judges have read the briefs; they already know which side of an issue the lawyer is on. The whole purpose of oral argument is to allow the judges to test the limits of the propositions the lawyer has set forth in writing. Otherwise, it's not an "argument," it's just a speech.
The only reason Thomas can say nothing is because all of his colleagues don't follow his lead. I was there on a case in 1999; Thomas said nothing, but Scalia, Ginsburg, Rehnquist, Kennedy and Souter had plenty to ask. THAT's what lawyers want, Justice Thomas; just ask them.
3
Oral argument is not for lawyers. Who cares what lawyers want? Oral argument is, presumably, for justices to ask questions to clarify briefs.
2
Clarence Thomas was publicly humiliated by the Anita Hill hearings, something he described as a "high-tech lynching." His blind rage in return--expressed in ideological opinions and cloaked in legalese--might be expected, it just has no place on the Supreme Court. His personal demons have all too powerful a voice.
As captured in a New Yorker cartoon: him, standing in the high court, looking down at his black countrymen, dragging up the ladder behind.
As captured in a New Yorker cartoon: him, standing in the high court, looking down at his black countrymen, dragging up the ladder behind.
8
The historical information about what the constitution means exists outside of the oral arguments. The issues or questions in the case are clearly defined in writing in advance. With regard to ruling consistent with what the ratifier of the constitution and its amendments understood it to mean as best we can determine, what added value in their is questioning oral presenters?
There may be a difference between ruling what is constitutional, and what, independent of the constitution, would best serve the general good especially as defined by peoples feeling. However, it is the former that is the job of a justice. The later is complex and probably would benefit from questioning, the later is more deterministic and defined.
John
There may be a difference between ruling what is constitutional, and what, independent of the constitution, would best serve the general good especially as defined by peoples feeling. However, it is the former that is the job of a justice. The later is complex and probably would benefit from questioning, the later is more deterministic and defined.
John
1
Briefs may try to present the facts of their argument. I do not believe any brief can present a totality of that argument. If it does present a different line of thinking from past decisions then this needs to be openly investigated in oral arguments in the open court. I know that what comes next is standard fare, that slavery, woman's right to vote, civil rights for minorities as well as majorities etc. There is always something new under the sun or we would still be living as hunter gatherers.
"I know that what comes next is standard fare, that slavery, woman's right to vote,"
Those were both covered by constitutional amendments, not judicial activism. As far as civil rights go, there are some enumerated civil rights that were written into the Bill of Rights and other amendments. There are other assumed court claimed fundamental rights, like abortion and same sex marriage a majority of justices wrote into the due process clause of the constitution. Both are rightfully state issues. As a thought experiment, imagine the reaction that would have occurred while debating the 14th if one claimed it guaranteed abortion and same sex marriage. While I thing same sex marriage should be legal, I also think it should be a state issue along with abortion until the constitution is amended.
Those were both covered by constitutional amendments, not judicial activism. As far as civil rights go, there are some enumerated civil rights that were written into the Bill of Rights and other amendments. There are other assumed court claimed fundamental rights, like abortion and same sex marriage a majority of justices wrote into the due process clause of the constitution. Both are rightfully state issues. As a thought experiment, imagine the reaction that would have occurred while debating the 14th if one claimed it guaranteed abortion and same sex marriage. While I thing same sex marriage should be legal, I also think it should be a state issue along with abortion until the constitution is amended.
On the one hand, Supreme Court oral argument ought not be an extension of the obnoxious classroom competitions I endured in law school, as students bent on catching professors' eyes hijacked classes with endless pointless questions.
On the other, the Court's free-for-all format has existed for decades. The mute justice sows doubt about the depth of his engagement with the cases. It's clear he doesn't mind leaving that impression.
Who besides Thomas benefits from this silence?
On the other, the Court's free-for-all format has existed for decades. The mute justice sows doubt about the depth of his engagement with the cases. It's clear he doesn't mind leaving that impression.
Who besides Thomas benefits from this silence?
The Justice's style of asking questions and the answers presented by attending attorneys does have a protocol by both their professional standings and simple decorum of manners in society. How often this is followed is up to them. Since Justice Thomas is concerned about cause and effect of the questions and responses he has the choice to remain silent or ask questions in the professional and civil codes of their setting. He could set the example of his appropriateness.
@ Robert: Justice, the Constitution and the United States.
@John Xavier III: Please clarify and/or elaborate, if possible.
His appointment felt at the time to have come in a moment of defensive contempt by the president, especially given his demeanor in the Senate hearing that ended fearfully dismissing cautionary testimony by others.
Clarence Thomas could easily be a character in a Kurt Vonnegut novel. His entire career is the result of the worst kind of affirmative action, an unqualified individual pushed forward because of his race and political leanings. However, he himself is 100% against affirmative action.
2
Incredible that some people still think Thomas has something to prove. He's certainly demonstrated his acumen as a legal scholar and someone who continues to show at least some regard for the Constitution (agree or disagree with him). His reticence in speaking strikes me as refreshing in a world of endless chatter, endless self-promotion and grandstanding. Wow, imagine, someone who just listens and lets the bloviation run its course. I rather like it.
61
Except of course it's his JOB to ask questions during oral argument.
1
JoeyB, where, pray tell, us it written or dictated that it is the "job" of a justice to ask questions at oral argument other than in the punditry and blogosphere? No where! His job is to rule on cases before the court not provide a show for the chattering classes.
3
Yet despite your respect for his "reticence in public speaking" you chose to share your views here. Good for you.
2
A decade and a half ago, I learned from a person at the Supreme Court in a position to know that Clarence Thomas had never ordered a single case from the library. Never to that point. It was clear too from his lack of requesting documents that he had never written an opinion that came out under his name; Scalia had written all of them. One may assume that the librarians play a different role now that so much information is in digital form, so perhaps we cannot so easily trace how little work Thomas is doing. Nonetheless, why should anything have changed? He'd already been on the bench well over a decade when that Supreme Court staff person outed him for doing absolutely nothing as a justice. You say that Thomas should talk, but what would he say? There is no indication that he has studied the cases, the laws that could shape them, or anything else but his marching orders from Scalia, ALEC, and the Koch brothers.
536
Oh come on, The Koch bogeyman trope is so over-played at this point. It is the fall back of every liberal. Maybe if you looked deeper, you might notice the Koch family is at the vanguard of criminal justice reform, a pet project of all liberals.
1
Ozark, every one of the Supreme Court justices have clerks, who mostly do the researching and writing for the drafts of the opinions. It would also be the clerk's job to request documents from the library.
4
And the Times classes this hearsay speculation as a "Pick"? Hatchet job!
4
The man has a conservative agenda that makes it a waste of his time to even consider conflicting arguments and debate the merits of his position. He truly is a political hack. The fact that he did not think it was anyone's business that his wife earned substantial money from her Tea Party activities says a lot.
Recently he published a dissent that for all intents and purposes appeared to be written by the NRA. It was in the Highland Park Illinois case in which the Court denied review of a lower court decision upholding a ban on sale and possession of assault weapons in that city. Any limits on possession is a battle cry for the NRA. Rarely will a dissent be published in a denial of review. Thomas was the only justice who felt compelled to put in print the NRA position that any regulation of weapons is an infringement and violation of the second amendment. He even disagreed with Scalia in Heller that reasonable regulations were permissible. He may as well be wearing GOP, NRA and Tea Party buttons while sitting on the bench.
Recently he published a dissent that for all intents and purposes appeared to be written by the NRA. It was in the Highland Park Illinois case in which the Court denied review of a lower court decision upholding a ban on sale and possession of assault weapons in that city. Any limits on possession is a battle cry for the NRA. Rarely will a dissent be published in a denial of review. Thomas was the only justice who felt compelled to put in print the NRA position that any regulation of weapons is an infringement and violation of the second amendment. He even disagreed with Scalia in Heller that reasonable regulations were permissible. He may as well be wearing GOP, NRA and Tea Party buttons while sitting on the bench.
8
Better to Remain Silent and Be Thought a Fool than to Speak and Remove All Doubt!
7
Thomas may have taken a good idea to extreme lengths, but I wish some of the other justices were more like him. Clearly they aren't often probing for information, but are trying to show just how smart and clever they are.
3
Let's not forget Biden's role in handling the hearings:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/23/biden-and-anita-hill-revis...
What a debacle and what a lack of judgement by then Senator Biden.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/23/biden-and-anita-hill-revis...
What a debacle and what a lack of judgement by then Senator Biden.
4
Perhaps he is just cognizant of Mr. Lincoln's thoughts on the matter?
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt. - Abraham Lincoln
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt. - Abraham Lincoln
6
Again, people "remove all doubt" that they're fools by claiming this quote is by Lincoln!
1
I have no comment.
10
Mr. Thomas can offer all the rationalizations he wants to explain his silence, but it's hard not to think one of two things: that he is simply in over his head, or that he is so biased overall, that he can't be bothered to examine the particulars of the cases.
Why, for example, does it have to be all or nothing? If he feels that the other justices tend to overdo it, he could just be more selective. But no questions at all? To me, it's an abandonment of responsibility.
Thomas's appointment was an underhanded but obvious trick to get an arch-conservative onto the court. The fact that he was black made him immune to a certain level of scrutiny, Anita Hill notwithstanding. We've been paying the price ever since.
Why, for example, does it have to be all or nothing? If he feels that the other justices tend to overdo it, he could just be more selective. But no questions at all? To me, it's an abandonment of responsibility.
Thomas's appointment was an underhanded but obvious trick to get an arch-conservative onto the court. The fact that he was black made him immune to a certain level of scrutiny, Anita Hill notwithstanding. We've been paying the price ever since.
11
Other countries have different practices. In France, at the equivalent of the Supreme Court level (there are 3 such courts in the French system), there are oral presentations which are just the briefs read aloud, there are no questions from the judges. It is stultifying to sit there for 2 hours as the lawyer drones on reading his brief, in total silence of the court, that everyone has already read. There's a break, then the next lawyer reads his 2 hour brief.
Nevertheless, the French courts seem capable of rendering decisions. And Thomas would fit right in, although he'd also be the only black judge.
Therein lies the real story, Thomas the silent black judge. This would be a non story if it were not for Thomas. If the NYT really wanted to see if oral arguments make any difference, it'd design a very sophisticated study. But that's hard work, whereas writing a pseudo story about the curiously quiet black judge is not.
Nevertheless, the French courts seem capable of rendering decisions. And Thomas would fit right in, although he'd also be the only black judge.
Therein lies the real story, Thomas the silent black judge. This would be a non story if it were not for Thomas. If the NYT really wanted to see if oral arguments make any difference, it'd design a very sophisticated study. But that's hard work, whereas writing a pseudo story about the curiously quiet black judge is not.
I think the most charitable characterization of his tenure on the Supreme Court is that of a low-talent plant - barely capable of carrying out his duties as conservative rubber-stamper.
However, in his defense, he has clearly internalized the old saw: "a fool is a wise man until he opens his mouth
However, in his defense, he has clearly internalized the old saw: "a fool is a wise man until he opens his mouth
5
Perhaps he has nothing to add and that's the sad part.
While I can understand not interrupting attorneys who come before the SCOTUS since they have such little time to deliver their arguments, I find it hard to believe in all those years, there is nothing he needed elaboration on.
He appears more arrogant than thoughtful of others if that's the way he feels.
While I can understand not interrupting attorneys who come before the SCOTUS since they have such little time to deliver their arguments, I find it hard to believe in all those years, there is nothing he needed elaboration on.
He appears more arrogant than thoughtful of others if that's the way he feels.
3
Thomas, Alito and Roberts are reason enough not to vote for Bush the Third.
9
Ah, joy. A reminder of why Thomas has gotten precious few (if any) invitations from the African-American establishment to speak at HBCUs or prominent black organizations. He's bitter because he will never get the esteem or place-of-honor Thurgood Marshall held, and rightly so.
5
Clarence Thomas is nothing more than the soldiers who were once called a 'goldbrick'. He also knows how he will vote on every issue that comes before the court no matter the importance. For me, he is perhaps the worst person ever to be placed on the highest court of the land.
9
Maybe he maybe he decided to stop asking questions after Anita Hill testified as to the nature of the questions he put to her.
5
Is it possible that Clarence Thomas doesn't ask questions during Court hearings because he has nothing intelligent to ask or say? The real question is whether this affirmative action appointee to the Supreme Court would have been considered for the position if he were not Black? He at least knows he is not smart enough to speak spontaneously in public. Maybe some day the veil will be lifted and we will learn whether he contributes anything to the closed door discussions at the Court. As of now he comes across as an embarrassment to the SCOTUS.
2
It is a travesty that Clarence Thomas occupies a seat on our highest court.Let us forget that he has never had ANY legal chops and focus on the fact he failed to file his tax returns for a number of years and that his wife runs a super pac in a direct conflict of interest.In a rush to put an african american on the supreme court,we settled for a miserable,misogynistic,know nothing lawyer
who does nothing but shadow Scalia.Thank you John Danforth and Biden.Why don't you suggest to Thomas that he vacate his seat for the good of the Country
who does nothing but shadow Scalia.Thank you John Danforth and Biden.Why don't you suggest to Thomas that he vacate his seat for the good of the Country
52
Hatred is not good for your health, and besmirching the name of a decent man shows more about you than him....
1
"We?" settled? Who, pray tell, is "we?"
I have to say that I find all the vilifying comments here as vaguely racist and downright mean.
I bet the man is smarter than almost everyone commenting here.
You may not like his politics (I don't personally agree), but how much do you like being interrupted with questions when making an argument or a speech? It is annoying.
So if this is his reason, I can respect it. It would take a lot of restraint.
Why all the hate?
I bet the man is smarter than almost everyone commenting here.
You may not like his politics (I don't personally agree), but how much do you like being interrupted with questions when making an argument or a speech? It is annoying.
So if this is his reason, I can respect it. It would take a lot of restraint.
Why all the hate?
2
Not racist, wondering when someone was going to revert to that. No one knows exactly how smart he is as he's been mute since he sat on the bench. Has never written an opinion either so there is nothing on the record to see how smart and knowledgeable he really is.
1
On the bench Justice Thomas seems to be either disinterested or insecure. If it's the former, he has no business being on the USSC.* If it's the latter, it's high time to put his big-boy pants on and get in the mix.
Either way, his tenure has been a laughingstock. He is a disgrace to the court, and should shuffle silently off into the sunset.
*Is he busy thinking about the "films" he was watching the night before, or vigilantly ensuring that there are no pubic hairs atop his soda can? Who knows for sure?
Either way, his tenure has been a laughingstock. He is a disgrace to the court, and should shuffle silently off into the sunset.
*Is he busy thinking about the "films" he was watching the night before, or vigilantly ensuring that there are no pubic hairs atop his soda can? Who knows for sure?
4
Clarence Thomas is the justice who routinely declares the most gifts than any other justice. It is his extra pay for staying silent and voting for his invisible conservatives supervisors.
5
Not being a lawyer and never having read how courts function I was able to predict with near hundred percent accuracy how Justice Thomas would vote on almost all cases since his appointment. That says something. Same goes with Justice Alito. Justice Alito says what Justice Thomas says in silence.
Although I do have conservative leanings in many areas, in my humble view, the Supreme Court should always remain liberal. That is the only way that an ordinary citizen - the little guy - is safe.
Although I do have conservative leanings in many areas, in my humble view, the Supreme Court should always remain liberal. That is the only way that an ordinary citizen - the little guy - is safe.
17
The next time anyone is tempted to vote for a candidate with the surname Bush or with an exclamation point after their first name but no apparent last name, it should be remembered that it was George H.W. Bush who nominated Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court with words such as "I believe he'll be a great justice" and "he is the best person for this position."
Neither politics, especially racial politics, nor governance gets any more cynical than that.
What also should be remembered is the eminence of the justice who held the seat immediate beforehand, Thurgood Marshall. The fact that Clarence Thomas was deemed worthy to succeed him is an insult not only to the court, but to the United States of America itself.
The Senate confirmation vote was 52-48, which only underscores how highly politicized the Supreme Court has become. And it went on to give us the Bush v. Gore decision by a one-vote margin and a president named George W. Bush.
The rest, as they say, especially the wreckage, is history.
Neither politics, especially racial politics, nor governance gets any more cynical than that.
What also should be remembered is the eminence of the justice who held the seat immediate beforehand, Thurgood Marshall. The fact that Clarence Thomas was deemed worthy to succeed him is an insult not only to the court, but to the United States of America itself.
The Senate confirmation vote was 52-48, which only underscores how highly politicized the Supreme Court has become. And it went on to give us the Bush v. Gore decision by a one-vote margin and a president named George W. Bush.
The rest, as they say, especially the wreckage, is history.
25
I think Clarence Thomas has remained silent all these years because he made a private promise to his God to atone for his lies. He is a religious person. When he was able to be confirmed, because he lied about Anita Hill's testimony, he realized that he didn't deserve to be there under those circumstances...and hence, the silence.
8
Real atonement would be quitting the Supreme Court.
1
Of course he doesn't ask questions. His mind is made up. Thomas is a disgrace to the Supreme Court, having squeaked through Congressional approval despite his obvious sexual inappropriateness to Anita Hill and others.
13
Why would he ask any questions? The only think Thomas ever wants to know is how Scalia is going to vote. Thomas has no questions because he has no intellectual curiosity. His mind has been made up from the moment he joined the court.
10
He doesn't ask questions because he already knows how he's going to vote before the arguments are made, and if he doesn't I'm sure one of the donor's to his wife's lobbying firm will tell him how to vote. He's a disgrace to the Supreme Court and to the USA.
18
Again? Yet another NYT article on the unbelievably old "discovery" that Justice Thomas very rarely asks questions at oral argument? Can it really be a slow news day, even with the 2016 Iowa caucuses finally at hand? Or does someone at the newspaper have a reminder set up on their Outlook to ping them at certain intervals to take another tired (but evidently necessary) cheap shot at Justice Thomas.
How many times can you recycle the same story? Because, in the spirit of today's caucuses, I vote that this story should be run at least three ... no, make that four times a year. After all, we wouldn't want people to forget.
How many times can you recycle the same story? Because, in the spirit of today's caucuses, I vote that this story should be run at least three ... no, make that four times a year. After all, we wouldn't want people to forget.
4
It's the ten year anniversary of his not asking a question. Don't try that in any other profession. He must be very happy that it's a lifetime appointment.
1
I'm not wondering at what future milestones should we expect front-page updates on this breaking news story?
Thomas represents not a systems that gives opportunities to all but one of the many ways in which democracy has been corrupted to serve the interests of those in society least interested in it.
5
Consistent with republican mandate to disrupt democratic process and debate in our country, Clarence Thomas wasn't chosen for his jurisprudence, he is a silent Black face whose purpose is to creating an illusion that American justice serves the broad swath of the public. As the high relative numbers of Black inmates tells us, this is not the case.
18
Justice Thomas has stated that he finds the grandstanding off-putting, likening it to Family Feud. One might not unreasonably assume that he might engage more if the court were more circumspect in that regard. We may like to make the assumption that he has nothing to add, and nothing to learn, but this is very possibly false. He simply stands down in the face of the din. It's also true that the questioning of the Justices often have nothing to do with legal issues, so much as social and economic questions - veering them dangerously into a legislative sort of role - deciding the merits of legislation based on it's effects, rather than it's legality. We see this all the time. If the justices are committed to interpreting the legality of judicial challenges based on the Constitution and standing law, one could argue that their much of this courtroom banter is superfluous. Besides, how often do the decisions ever refer to the courtroom drama? Almost never, I think. The decisions are ultimately based on legal precedent and Constitutional argument (even if sometimes horribly tortured). It would appear that the more the Justices question, the more they veer from their jobs - which is to interpret the soundness of law.
1
This is a pretty horrible analysis of Thomas. How about Scalia and his unrelenting need to needle lawyers with questions? I practice law and I would love to be able to finish a sentence without a blowhard judge jumping in every 5 seconds.
Maybe Thomas is bored. Maybe he has his mind made up. But whatever it may be, I do not understand how quiet reflection is a crutch as a judge, but being a loud bombastic bully like Scalia is perfectly ok. I wonder, if Thomas acted like Scalia, would NYT be asking "Why is there an angry black man on the Supreme Court?"
Maybe Thomas is bored. Maybe he has his mind made up. But whatever it may be, I do not understand how quiet reflection is a crutch as a judge, but being a loud bombastic bully like Scalia is perfectly ok. I wonder, if Thomas acted like Scalia, would NYT be asking "Why is there an angry black man on the Supreme Court?"
7
I have never accused Thomas or Scalia or having any maturity whatever. Remember when justices were grown-ups? I do.
1
As much as I try, I cannot forgive George H.W. Bush for picking this guy for such an important function in our government.
64
Thomas's appointment by Bush Senior may be the most politically calculated, cynically Machiavellian stunts in American history, considering Thomas replaced Justice Thurgood Marshall. Bush wanted to win points with conservative Republicans AND the black community, apparently figuring that one black face replacing another should be a wash. Why would anyone care that Thomas was unqualified?
2
Bush didn't pick clarence to make you happy. He picked clarence to make himself happy - knowing what the man is capable of!
1
He certainly had plenty to say at his confirmation hearings including accusing the Senate committee of conducting "a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree."
10
i am coming to appreciate Justice Thomas while the poltical circus roars around
the ring signifying nothing. why add one's voice to an overcooked profession and a constitution hijacked by sanctimonius wealth?
the ring signifying nothing. why add one's voice to an overcooked profession and a constitution hijacked by sanctimonius wealth?
3
When Thomas was nominated by H W Bush the ABA judged him not qualified, after much pressure from the white house and other massive political pressure the ABA gave Thomas a minimally qualified rating, many do not believe Thomas has the smarts or nimble mind to parry with the attorneys who come before the court, WAKE UP AMERICA
15
Maybe he just doesn't give a damn.
5
I'd ask him: "How does it feel to be imprisoned by yourself on the court for the lies you told about Anita?"
17
Clarence Thomas will add "I yield to Justice Scalia".
2
Despite what anyone says, we all know the reason Clarence Thomas is so disliked - some people just can't stand to see a black man on the highest court in the land. Progress will happen with or without you - get used to it.
35
I question your hypothesis.
Thurgood Marshall was also a black justice.
Those people who were in favor of Marshal's confirmation opposed Thomas' confirmation.
Those who favored Thomas' confirmation opposed Marshall's confirmation.
The issue was NOT race but the justice's ideology.
Thurgood Marshall was also a black justice.
Those people who were in favor of Marshal's confirmation opposed Thomas' confirmation.
Those who favored Thomas' confirmation opposed Marshall's confirmation.
The issue was NOT race but the justice's ideology.
20
Thurgood Marshall was black and served with distinction on the SC for 24 years so I conclude the dislike for Thomas is for something other than race. Here is a quote of Marshall's that offers a strong contrast to Thomas:
"None of us got where we are solely by pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps. We got here because somebody - a parent, a teacher, an Ivy League crony or a few nuns - bent down and helped us pick up our boots.” ~ Thurgood Marshall
"None of us got where we are solely by pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps. We got here because somebody - a parent, a teacher, an Ivy League crony or a few nuns - bent down and helped us pick up our boots.” ~ Thurgood Marshall
8
Bull hockey. The man simply does not work. It's not about race, and you can be sure of that because no one had these complaints about Thurgood Marshall. The difference is that Marshall actually worked for his paycheck.
7
Having presented 200+ oral arguments my take on silence is that the bench has reached its decision and little other than a nuclear detonation will affect the already determined outcome. Lawyers welcome questions; its the oil of oral argument. It you're not having a conversation then you're not engaged in finding a result: you don't care.
747
My experience is more limited, but sometimes arguing before a multijudge panel is like being in a bumper-car arena: You get hit from one side, and before you collect yourself you get hit from another, and then from another... And what you had to say that is of value never gets said. Sometimes I wonder what motivates the judges to do this, because it seems of no value in helping understand what the lawyers are saying. My view is that the pendulum needs to swing in the direction that Justice Thomas would push it. My politics, etc., are very different from his, but this is not a left-right issue.
I too have argued many cases in many different appellate courts, state and federal, and I have yet to have a judge tell me that oral argument, any oral argument, not just mine, has ever made a difference in the outcome of a case. Indeed, when I was in law school, a court of appeals judge visited one of my classes. On his own, he said that he was often asked about oral argument and whether it was important, and he said that if you have a client paying you to be somewhere else, be there.
This is just another excuse to criticize someone for irrelevant reasons.
This is just another excuse to criticize someone for irrelevant reasons.
Ronald Cohen nailed it.
I am sure the one question he is dying to ask himself if "Why am I here?". To say it is unnecessary and not helpful is to abort his role in helping along vigorous debate in the cases that make it to the SCOTUS. He is one of the reasons why I think Term Limits would allow a fresh waft of air to rid us of the fetid stench of laziness.
1
Adam Liptak,a Times reporter,writes this hit piece on Thomas and commentators here jump on his anti Thomas bandwagon.You can evaluate Thomas favorably or unfavorably but he'll be there for life.Liptak now needs to analyze Ginsburg the former ACLU top lawyer,Sotomayor who can't resist interrupting/questioning her peers/lawyers arguing cases,and Kagan,Kagan's questions are usually off point,immature and routinely dismissed by the other Justices.
4
People are free to disagree with or dislike any particular Justice on the court. What is sad, however, is the on going theme of many that a black person, as with a number of other minorities, must be judged by one standard of thought, ideas and positions - in this case, if they are conservative in their outlook, regardless of the legal basis or personal history that led them (as it has led each and everyone one of us) to form and hold certain views, then they are somehow not a "real" black or a traitor to some bizarre expectation that they MUST think a certain way or face scorn and ridicule. The Reverend Martin Luther King might well have vehemently disagreed with many of Justice Thomas' positions on matters before him (who knows), but I would imagine he would be appalled at the idea that a black man (or woman) would be expected to toe the metaphorical line and think and opine only as one side expects him to. That's pretty insulting.
1
The biggest waste of oxygen and space to ever grace the Supreme Court.
I might disagree with Scalia on a lot of things, but at least he has the courage and conviction to voice and make clear his opinions.
Thomas, on the other hand, is the very epitome of an empty suit. He's on the Court for no other reason than to side the same exact way every single time no matter what. The reasoning? There is none. He's just there.
What a disgrace.
I might disagree with Scalia on a lot of things, but at least he has the courage and conviction to voice and make clear his opinions.
Thomas, on the other hand, is the very epitome of an empty suit. He's on the Court for no other reason than to side the same exact way every single time no matter what. The reasoning? There is none. He's just there.
What a disgrace.
9
Our politics seem to be similar but I think is is contributing to violent rhetoric to call anyone a waste of oxygen.
We each need to consider the words that come from our mouths.
I don't agree with the old "Sticks and Stones..."
Names do hurt people.
We each need to consider the words that come from our mouths.
I don't agree with the old "Sticks and Stones..."
Names do hurt people.
1
I'm sorry.
You're right.
Thomas isn't a waste of oxygen.
He'd have to open his mouth to speak for that to be the case.
You're right.
Thomas isn't a waste of oxygen.
He'd have to open his mouth to speak for that to be the case.
Must be nice to have a job for life where you never opened your mouth once to voice an opinion or ask a question.
I am black and I find him to be a disgrace and useless!
I am black and I find him to be a disgrace and useless!
7
He is a disgrace to the court, along with scalia and alito.
10
Justice Thomas's silence unsettles me, and I have read enough of Justice Thomas's opinions to dislike them. I remember Anita Hill but I also remember the '70's. It was a long time ago; things were different then, and besides the issue was raised, litigated and decided ...
As a female lawyer whose greatest skill was listening, I think His Honor may be on to something here. The very male sort of jostling that goes on in court -- oh, people pretend there is some magic in the "adversarial" character of our judicial system but really it's just a structure that can be made to work. It's not magic or, strictly speaking, mandatory and necessary. Courteous lawyers win cases too!
A justice that chooses to listen, and chooses not to interrupt (!!!) may well be onto something that a discordant and discourteous age has forgotten. It does not surprise me that he is a minority, and that I, as a woman, think that perhaps I understand what he is doing. Without being discourteous ourselves, some of us who are lawyers but neither white nor male nor aggressive, truly do find the stylized spectacle of cross-talk no way, at all, to get to the truth. (As a side matter I note that no woman will find herself appointed to the Supreme Court unless she finds a way to become good at what the white men do...)
Besides, this is what the man himself says he is doing. Isn't that enough explanation?
As a female lawyer whose greatest skill was listening, I think His Honor may be on to something here. The very male sort of jostling that goes on in court -- oh, people pretend there is some magic in the "adversarial" character of our judicial system but really it's just a structure that can be made to work. It's not magic or, strictly speaking, mandatory and necessary. Courteous lawyers win cases too!
A justice that chooses to listen, and chooses not to interrupt (!!!) may well be onto something that a discordant and discourteous age has forgotten. It does not surprise me that he is a minority, and that I, as a woman, think that perhaps I understand what he is doing. Without being discourteous ourselves, some of us who are lawyers but neither white nor male nor aggressive, truly do find the stylized spectacle of cross-talk no way, at all, to get to the truth. (As a side matter I note that no woman will find herself appointed to the Supreme Court unless she finds a way to become good at what the white men do...)
Besides, this is what the man himself says he is doing. Isn't that enough explanation?
3
Are we not confusing the notions of courteous reticence and lack of judicial curiosity here?
www.endthemadnessnow.org
www.endthemadnessnow.org
5
Conflict of interest should have led to his removal many years ago. But remember, the Hillary will appoint the best justices is hollow. Despite all the evidence of his lack of fitness for the highest court, Democrats voted Thomas in too.
3
It may be true that maintaining silence takes a certain stamina (What certain stamina?) but it also can mask a lazy, uncurious mind. For my money--and I resent the portion of it that Thomas gets--he is a blight on the Court and the country's lip-service to justice. In other occupations he would be called a free-loader, a gold-bricker or just a bum.
19
In my humble opinion, his appointment was a waste of time.
8
I wonder what the comments/responses would reflect if Judge Thomas was not African-American? Honestly, the PC tip-toeing is stifling. Justice Thomas is a disgrace and has demonstrated this fact multiple times during his almost quarter century tenure. He lacks the ability to question all if not most "advocates" who appear before the U.S. Supreme Court. Without question, CT knows his grossly limited abilities and biases will be exposed if he attempted to engage in robust questioning. Unfortunately, he reinforces all horribly racist and untrue stereotypes regarding affirmative action.
15
I have read that Thomas is ashamed of his accent and does not like to speak. Rather than overcome that personal problem, he says he doesn't think SCOTUS justices should ask questions. at all. This man who constantly rules in favor of the rich and the white and the police state and against civil liberties and affirmative action has always seemed to me to be a victim of Stockholm Syndrome.
512
"Always" in favor? You might want to take the time to read through his record. I think you will want to lose the word "always."
1
I'm a black man. One day someone mentioned Clarence Thomas's name in the same sentence with Thurgood Marshall – and I almost threw up. The reason has no questions is because he doesn't know where he's at, and he's definitely in the wrong place. I wouldn't mind him being a conservative if he had one legitimate thought of his own.
2
Humm, or is it just easier to sit there, do nothing, and draw a paycheck??
2
Racist attack by the NY Times.
2
Where do you see that? This article merely takes note of a particular justice's well-documented inclination to refrain from speaking during court proceedings. It credits the justice with intelligence and does not disparage him in any way, racist or otherwise. An "average American" would certainly appreciate that.
7
What about the attacks to Anita Hill? Were not racist misogynists attacks? They killed the messenger and crowned the criminal puppet!
3
Back that statement up please. Nothing racist about this article at all.
2
While there are many Times' readers who disagree with Justice Thomas' decisions and regard him as an intellectual light wight. I wonder whether any of these readers has every read an actual Supreme Court decision which was written by Thomas. In order to judge the ability of a justice, one actually must read his decisions which cover aspects of law which don't get popular news coverage such as civil procedure, tax law. conflicts of law or bankruptcy. To often conservatives and liberals judge a person intellect by whether or not they agree with a person's convulsions, and not by the reasoning of that person's arguments.
2
Well put, and I would imagine that most never have read any of the decisions they rant and rave about. Citizens United is a classic case where we read almost every time it comes up how the Roberts court just created "corporations are people". But, hey, if you read it on Facebook or saw a skit on SNL what more do you need to know, right?
1
The opinions of written by law clerks, not Thomas, venture to say most of them are more intelligent than he could ever be, for sure. WAKE UP
1
George S: OK, I just read the CU ruling and I see where Roberts, Kennedy, Alito, Scalia and Thomas (surprise, surprise!!) ruled that stopping Corporations from buying elections was not right, so they said Corporations are people too, and can use their massive resources to affect elections. And of course, the Kochs have not used their resources to buy many elections, now have they?
3
Asking questions shows a sign of intellectual curiosity? One asks questions to determine various points of view or ideas, or reasons for certain aspects of what is to be decided on.
Clarence Thomas showing no inclination to question or provoke thoughts and get to the bottom of an argument by asking questions, shows to me a lack of curiosity or interest in even being there. It's comes off a close minded and limited.
Clarence Thomas showing no inclination to question or provoke thoughts and get to the bottom of an argument by asking questions, shows to me a lack of curiosity or interest in even being there. It's comes off a close minded and limited.
8
The interruption argument is silly, but he has a point about questioning the attorneys. Cases are decided based on arguments put forth in the various briefs. If this wasn't the case, why allow amicus briefs?
I can't imagine being in that situation and not asking a question; I have an opinion on everything and I'll bet eventually the other justices would stage an intervention.
I can't imagine being in that situation and not asking a question; I have an opinion on everything and I'll bet eventually the other justices would stage an intervention.
2
Thomas is the biggest dud in the history of the court.
12
we have joe biden to thank for this joke of a justice
he would not allow addition women who were willing to testify uncle thomas did the same things to them that he'd done to Hill
we're saddled with thomas for easily another 15 or 20 years - for 45 years on the court for this furious fundamentalist second rate nutjob
and as a bonus we get the lovely ginny taking high paid jobs and dialing drunk
thanks, joe
he would not allow addition women who were willing to testify uncle thomas did the same things to them that he'd done to Hill
we're saddled with thomas for easily another 15 or 20 years - for 45 years on the court for this furious fundamentalist second rate nutjob
and as a bonus we get the lovely ginny taking high paid jobs and dialing drunk
thanks, joe
10
Anita Hill swore to tell the truth - and she did.
Republican Congresspeople chose to ignore it.
Republican Congresspeople chose to ignore it.
3
Justice Thomas says that the questions are already answered. I take him at his word. The rest is show. It's actually a waste of time and money. Of course, these stupendous egos have to be fed! We have several justices who have dubious qualifications (Sotomayor and Kegan are two such examples). Kennedy, Breyer, and the sleeping justice spend most of their quality time in Europe being praised and worshipped. It is universally stated that all of the workers at the Supreme Court Building respect Justice Thomas because he takes time to recognize them as people. Justice Thomas is the closest thing that we have to someone who has lived among the people, and not the elites. I have begun to think of these arrogant "European-like" rulers as gods. Since these nine justices are making law, we could save the money and disband the Congress! It appears that that is what they want!
1
Why bother asking a question? Thomas' law clerks do all the heavy lifting, so why should he bother to acquaint himself with the cases being heard? The Justices that do ask questions present themselves as having at least a little interest in the case. But, even that's too much for Thomas. It's easier to just agree with Scalia's opinion, whatever it is, and go home for dinner.
9
Justice Thomas stays silent on the bench to this day, for the same reason he admits to staying silent in college and law school: he knows he is in way over his head.
But it is one thing to keep your head down and do the work as best you can. My problem with Justice Thomas is that he wants to shut the door on those who are much more talented than he is, but lack the opportunities he was given.
But it is one thing to keep your head down and do the work as best you can. My problem with Justice Thomas is that he wants to shut the door on those who are much more talented than he is, but lack the opportunities he was given.
12
Better to remain quiet and be thought a fool...
4
I have two thoughts on Thomas's lack of apparent engagement.
Tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than speak and remove all doubt.
The other is that following the legal argunents would make it more difficult to nap.
Tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than speak and remove all doubt.
The other is that following the legal argunents would make it more difficult to nap.
12
In a word: Touche'.
1
I think it fair to classify Justice Thomas as "consistently disengaged". His absence at the state of the union addresses is also a given. I believe that as a supreme court justice he has an obligation to comply to the tradition of the court and lend his voice to the American public. The respect and trust for such a justice is limited.
567
I fail to see why the Justices appear at the State of the Union at all, for it has become a highly manipulated, partisan media event, with certain characters seated for effect by the First Lady, routine standing and cheering by one side or the other, and more of a wish list of the sitting president than a report on the condition of the country. The constitution doesn't call for an in person address nor for the attendance of the Justices.
2
Why attend the State of the Union when a the head of a co-equal branch of government openly chastises you and you have no right to respond? Obama so lowered the bar when he attacked the Supreme Court that no sane justice should attend.
1
He's being paid a huge salary with huge benefits. If he were "working" at any other job, he'd be long gone. This is disgusting and just another example of politics gone down the toilet.
You guys need to cut him some slack. He was the only black conservative Bush Sr. could find to replace Thurgood Marshall.
1
Justice Thomas possesses a deep-seated hatred arising from the slights, real and imagined, he says he suffered throughout his life. His silence during oral arguments reflects this animosity; to speak up and participate would be in his mind tacit acknowledgement of a process (jurisprudence) that he believes is tilted against him personally.
One could say that Thomas' taciturn behavior is the polar opposite of another personality, Donald Trump, who conveys his disgust with traditional party politics and political precedent, not by staying out of the fray, but rather by taking it on full force and talking over everyone in the room. In each case, there is something -- a bruise to the ego, perhaps -- that manifests itself in how and why they behave as they do.
One could say that Thomas' taciturn behavior is the polar opposite of another personality, Donald Trump, who conveys his disgust with traditional party politics and political precedent, not by staying out of the fray, but rather by taking it on full force and talking over everyone in the room. In each case, there is something -- a bruise to the ego, perhaps -- that manifests itself in how and why they behave as they do.
4
If people were honest, they'd admit that many, if not most times, questions posed by one of the Justices are aimed at clarifying the opinion they already hold. Sometimes it's sadly also for the purpose of appearing glib or scoring a point (a perfect demonstration of why we do not need live television in the Court).
The SCOTUS is an appellate court, not a trial one, where a lively back and forth decides the case. Yes, the Justices need to discuss it amongst themselves but frankly that is best done behind closed doors where thoughts, opinions and questions can be frank and honest, and not something that will be parsed on the internet by comics and partisans who think they know everything about the way the law should be, whether it be on Facebook or in the comments sections in the NYT.
The SCOTUS is an appellate court, not a trial one, where a lively back and forth decides the case. Yes, the Justices need to discuss it amongst themselves but frankly that is best done behind closed doors where thoughts, opinions and questions can be frank and honest, and not something that will be parsed on the internet by comics and partisans who think they know everything about the way the law should be, whether it be on Facebook or in the comments sections in the NYT.
1
Disagree 100%. An institution which can only discuss, out of the public view, its views about some of the most important matters this country faces, has no place in a democracy. That's why the proceedings of the Supreme Court, and most other federal (and state) courts, are open to the public. They are OUR courts, not some secret apparatus of the State.
2
The proceedings are public, but their discussion of is private. We don't get to hear jury deliberations either. That doesn't render them faulty because the deliberation phase is "secret". We learn their views when the opinion is published.
2
IMO, The single greatest malignancy of our time is the SCOTUS becoming a polarized political arm of the legislative branch. Thomas (and don't forget his right-wing activist wife) is the worst indicator of this trend to knee-jerk partisanship.
4
His wife is the spokesperson and activist in his family. The poor guy probably has the "Stockholm Syndrome" and has forgotten how to use his vocal chords. And if I remember correctly, he performed the marriage of Russ Limbaugh to one of his several wives. That about says it all, doesn't it ?
8
Justice Thomas apparently operates with the philosophy that it is better to let people think you're idiot than to open your mouth and prove them right.
3
another Republican disaster.
2
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.
10
An example of where a commitment to loyalty was a both a strength and a weakness of GHW Bush. He should have withdrawn the Clarence Thomas nomination for the greater good. He also should have switched Vice Presidents when he ran for a second term.
1
I would like to know from the author, in another article on the court, whether Scalia actually does any homework at all. He seems to me to be the lazy justice; happy with his "opinion", despite the law, the constitution and precedent.
1
You don't need to be vocal on the bench if you know that wherever the big dog goes, you will just be padding along right behind.
8
Thomas is a joke..... i don't get...He does not ask questions because he is intellectually lazy or just not that smart, and he gets a fluff piece in the Times to celebrate his incompetence. A man who would not have been at harvard or on the supreme court were it not for the color of his skin does not believe in affirmative action. as head of the civil rights division, he sexually harassed Anita Hill. If Justice Thomas were to talk.....he would confirm the mediocrity as a lawyer and jurist that is his legacy......
8
Justice Thomas silence on the bench is not a sign of incompetence nor lack of intellectual prowess. While his heart and mind tilt toward conservative thought, he is surrounded by men and women whose opinions and questions cover the political and ethical rainbow. I view him as a jurist of deep thought who has done his "homework" and has left it up to his colleagues to fill in for their lack of understanding or their need to hear their own voices. As the author notes, when he does speak people listen. Much like the comment columns of news and opinion articles, why add a repetition when a simple "like" will do the job?
It is said lawyers never ask a question they don't know the answer to. So it is understandable that Thomas never asks any questions.
7
I am unable to get past his performance during the
ananita hill episode.
He seems like a low information justice.
ananita hill episode.
He seems like a low information justice.
10
Wow. I had no idea that Justice Thomas had any admirers. I honestly wonder what they admire.
12
Justice Thomas is doing exactly what he was put there to do.
19
Funny. I thought by the time cases reached the Supreme Court, there were mountains of opinions, documents, etc. to read, and the Oral Argument is a supplement to it. NOT the basis for judgement. But Mr. Liptak, and the other who don't like a Black man who doesn't fall in the liberal model they expect, seem to think asking questions during Oral Arguments IS where the case is decided.
Certainly Mr. Liptak knows this isn't true. So then, what's the big deal? Other than the "hey the Black guy doesn't talk much" headline.
Certainly Mr. Liptak knows this isn't true. So then, what's the big deal? Other than the "hey the Black guy doesn't talk much" headline.
1
No mention of her here, but I remember Anita Hill. Was she omitted out of respect for Thomas, or simply eclipsed as his tenure on "jury duty" has proved more scandalous than his confirmation?
12
From his speeches to conservative groups and from his autobiography, Thomas emerges as a man too bitter to be an objective judge. All of the justices have their own biases, but they are not weighted like this man is with anger and resentment. Yes, he should have never been nominated to the Court, but that decision cannot be undone, so there is no use in crying over spilled milk. Because tenure on the Supreme Court is for life, the upcoming election has the potential to shape American history for decades to come. I hope thoughtful people get out and vote, or else the GOP will win the election and annihilate anything left of the Court's dignity..
37
Hear! Hear!
1
This stems from another constitutional flaw that justices are elected for life and only impeachment which is very unlikely can unseat them. We would never have to put up with him and Dinosaur Scalia if there were a term limit in the Supreme Court.
8
I'm a black and a conservative, so I agree with Thomas's politics more often than not. However the inability to ask a single question in ten years indicates to me the lack of a probing mind. Something in the last 10 years should have sparked some curiosity.
967
if you read an opinion by him, you would not make this comment. If during oral "argument" you actually need to ask a question because you don't know the answer (rather than for show), you have already lost the game.
2
For many who were speculating if DCbarrister is Clarence Thomas, writing comments prolifically is not the same thing as speaking out in the court.
2
Ed, your's is a comment I can get behind. I will say that I am neither black nor conservative but I just have the distinct feeling that he is a somewhat vapid person who is just going along with the court's "conservative" peers. I don't think any of it really interests him.
Wow, what a waste of a very special opportunity!
Wow, what a waste of a very special opportunity!
4
It's because he is still in shock that he ever got selected to the Supreme court, he still can't understand it.
12