DC: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas did something extraordinary on Wednesday.
He spoke.
Appearing before the Supreme Court is rather like meeting your spouse’s family for the first time. The questions are relentless, probing and impolite. One hundred questions over the course of an hour-long argument is typical. Attorneys arguing cases can expect an interruption from a justice just moments into their presentation, and it is not unusual for the justices to interrupt one another.
Yet Thomas is generally an observer at the blood sport that is oral argument. Since taking the bench in 1991, he has rarely asked questions of the attorneys arguing before the Court. His silent stretches run so long (he did not ask one question from 2006 to 2016) that the very fact of his speaking is a news event.
The questions he asked Wednesday, in a dispute concerning racism in jury selection, were his first questions in almost three years and his second intervention this decade.
Thomas is alone in this approach to argument among his colleagues. His silence draws curiosity and ire in equal measure, particularly since he is widely regarded as the most gregarious of the justices.
Scholarly treatment of Thomas’s silence is similarly mixed. One 2017 journal article in the Northwestern University Law Review from Professors RonNell Andersen Jones and Aaron Nielson compiled and reviewed every question Thomas has ever asked during oral argument, encompassing his service on the Supreme Court and his prior work on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Jones and Nielson concluded that Thomas is an adept questioner who should intercede more often.
“Reviewing these questions demonstrates that although Thomas has not frequently spoken, when he has posed questions, they have been thoughtful, useful, respectful, and beneficial to his colleagues of whatever ideological stripe,” the study reads.
Jones and Nielson noted Thomas’s questions focus intensely on the text of the law. Following the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s death, they suggest oral arguments would benefit from a questioner with Thomas’s “laser-like focus on the text.”
“Putting aside the merits of textualism as an ending point, or even as a starting point, in statutory interpretation, the merits of having an active voice in oral argument that demands investigation of and discussion about the statutory language seem incontrovertible,” they write.
“With Justice Antonin Scalia’s departure from the Supreme Court, the need for a justice to ask these sorts of questions is obvious,” they add.
When Thomas does ask questions, Jones and Neilson say, they tend to come near the end of the argument. His Wednesday inquiries came during a brief rebuttal period, only after the attorney asked if there were any remaining questions. The justice himself speculated that his delicate approach to questioning is a function of his southern pedigree during an event at the University of Kentucky in April 2012.
“Maybe it’s the southerner in me,” Thomas wondered. “Maybe it’s the introvert in me, I don’t know. I think that when somebody’s talking, somebody ought to listen.” more
A credit to his race.This is the guy
you young black guys ought to look up
to,not the retard poop dog.
Thomas is a credit to our country.
Never interrupt the enemy when he is failing.
THE MEASURE OF A MAN
Not – How did he die? But – How did he live?
Not – What did he gain? But – What did he give?
These are the things that measure the worth
Of a man as a man, regardless of birth.
Not – What was his station? But – had he a heart?
And – How did he play his God-given part?
Was he ever ready with a word of good cheer?
To bring back a smile, to banish a tear?
Not – What was his church? Not – What was his creed?
But – Had he befriended those really in need?
Not – What did the sketch in the newspaper say?
But – How many were sorry when he passed away?
These are the things that measure the worth
Of a man as a man, regardless of birth. (Anonymous)
When I hear men like Comey, Brennan, Schiff…..(fill in the blank), bloviating oratorial platitudes, my first thought is, how can you live with yourself with the knowledge of your evil deeds, but more importantly, the legacy you leave your kids/family?
My wife spoke with Justice Thomas a few times at a small Virginia College, their kids were students there. She says he is a personable, pleasant, respectable(ful) individual, and she always admired his Rolex. 😀
It doesn’t matter so much to weigh in on something (irony alert 😀 ) as to carefully consider it.
Which one of the justices – won’t shut up? Where is that article?
I suspect when Justice Thomas speaks it is during deliberation between the judges when they are deciding the merit of the case.
Getting canned answers from Attorneys have little value. The case must be weighed by the Constitution, not a slick or compassionate delivery by attorneys.
The real debate occurs behind closed doors of the Supreme Court (after the attorneys state their case), where Justice Thomas’ intellectual weight if fully felt and needed to offset the revisionist judges of the left.
THE smartest man in the room… & it AIN’T O’Bumbles!