Clarence Thomas: Perhaps Even Dumber Than I Had Thought

(Clarence Thomas is bored and tired of your silly questions.)







From the New York Times today comes Justice Clarence Thomas and "His Case for Shutting Up"

Aside from the occasional thrashing, Justice Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court has mostly kept his thoughts during oral arguments to himself. He’s also kept his reasons for staying quiet to himself
On Wednesday night, a question about his lack of questions came up at an appearance i

“My colleagues should shut up!,” he said in a line that probably sounds worse in print — he suggested it was meant as a joke. But his point remained in later comments.

“I think that they should ask questions,” he explained, “but I don’t think that for judging, and for what we are doing, all those questions are necessary.

[snip]
Mr. Thomas argued that it wasn’t always like that, and that history was on his side. Justice Thomas “noted that through history, most top judges rarely asked questions,” “What’s changed? Have the laws changed? What’s changed? And why are all these questions necessary? That should be the question.”

According to the article, Justice Thomas hasn't said a word during oral arguments since February of 2006.

When I read this article and I heard him ask "if all those questions are necessary" I was incredulous. I know it is not nearly the same thing but I was a judge for the Moot Court Tournament for three years at Duke where we would have to judge constitutional cases and there would be no way, if the whole panel didn't ask a question that we would have come to any correct decisions.
And so I would have to say yeah those questions are necessary, just a little. Anyone can get up and say anything unchallenged but when you ask them a question from a different angle perhaps in a way they've never seen before you can actually measure the nuance and subtlety of their arguments. If it holds up to challenge then it is far more legitimate than having each side recite their speaking points and being awed by who talks prettier or sounds smarter. (and to be philosophical for a sec: no one is told the truth, they have to ask and poke around and discover it, and not just accept the word of another.)
I always assumed he never spoke because he was basically, in my mind, Scalia's lap dog something that implies a basic level of incompetence for The Court and I accepted that (can't really change it; why worry?) But to try to justify not talking by basically saying who needs questions? who needs clarification? who needs... it is truly maddening.

And yeah maybe history is on his side (it's friday, I'm not doing Supreme Court historical research, dammit) but the history of the Court also said seperate but equal was a legitimate standard for 58 years so....maybe times change and the things that are necessary on the highest court in the land.

Sphere: Related Content