Sotomayor Asks More Questions In An Hour Than Thomas Has In Years

The Supreme Court's newest justice, Sonia Sotomayor, made her presence felt as the court began its new term Monday, the AP reports.

The Supreme Court began its new term Monday by indicating a willingness to limit how long a suspect's request for a lawyer should remain valid, and new Justice Sonia Sotomayor wasted little time in letting her voice be heard by questioning the lawyers.

Just how vocal was Sotomayor on the Monday? According to McClatchy she managed to ask more questions in an hour than the extremely taciturn Clarence Thomas has asked "over the course of several years."

The Washington Post also commented on Sotomayor's confident performance in its review of Monday's session:

Sotomayor displayed no reticence on the first day of her first term on the court; in the two cases on the docket, she asked as many questions and made as many comments as Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. The only sign of her newness was that she at times forgot to turn on her microphone before posing a question.

Does Clarence Thomas really ask so few questions that Sotomayor could beat his total in an hour, you may wonder. Indeed, he does. As the AP reported in February 2008, Thomas had gone 2 years and 144 cases without speaking up during oral arguments. "It is a period of unbroken silence that contrasts with the rest of the court's unceasing inquiries," the AP wrote at the time.

Comments

[King Cashaw]

If I remember correctly, did not the US Bar Assoc, say he was unqualified, or something to this effect?

[dancucich]

"If I remember correctly, did not the US Bar Assoc, say he was unqualified, or something to this effect?"

----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­---------
He did get one "unqualified" on the ABA comittee, while the others offered
"qualified" votes. (but not "highly qualified" votes)
Academically speaking his qualifications are good; however he had little judicial
experience whne he was nominated-he had just recently ,
been appointed to the DC Court of Appeals,.

He certainly was not the best qualified-but then neither was Earl Warren
who was not even a Lawyer-much less a judge.

SCOTUS appointments are inherently and inexorably political;
elections have consequences. .

[brandon102]

Well of course she asked questions because she's intelligent and gets the job done. Smart justices often act like that. Although, if the Repbs had had their way she certainly would not be on the court.

As for Thomas, no matter how hard he tries Scalia can only manipulate his hand up Thomas' butt so much to form the questions that come out of Thomas' mouth, therefore the lack of questioning. But really, all Thomas has ever been asked to do is sit quietly, vote as he's told and be a good Token. No one expected judicial brilliance from him, and our expectations have been fulfilled.

[americanwhocares]

Justices Thomas, Roberts and Alito all lied under oath during their confirmation hearing (aka perjury). Expect nothing good concerning justice from these criminals on the Supreme Court.

[MichaelMcKLA]

I regard Thomas as a bad joke, but insofar as political strategy is concerned, George 41 pulled off a magnificent coup. He managed to find a black jurist to replace the one retiring, who happens to be an arch conservative. As a choice for the Supreme Court, Thomas is laughable. But I did laugh when B41 made the nomination. Lousy judge but a very cool political move. LOL LOL LOL

[tekboog]

Yeah it's crazy how justices are nominated for political reasons LOL..LOL..­LOL....you know I'm surprised "O" didn't nominate a Hispanic, you know with the Hispanic population increasing everyday..­..or maybe a woman to get the female vote....th­at would have been a really cool political move if he had done that....

[LordByron13]

What's really crazy? You think Sotomayor was purely political.­..when it was politcal and based on a skillset Thomas wishes he had. And yes, I'm mixed race, black/white.

Skillsets.­.they'll trump you everytime.­..LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, (takes a breath) LMFAO!

[dancucich]

"but I'm sure the other justices get just as much out of it by asking questions.­­...everyb­o­dy's different.­.."
----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­-------
I agree; everyone is different.

But I cant see how in the world anyone can fully understand a lawyer's argument,
if his/her presentation is interupted every 60-90 seconds.
It might actually cause him/her to omit an important point if his/her
presentationt.

Of course we can say a good lawyer should not be distracted­...
But getting the truth should be our goal: its should not be a contest to see
which lawyer is more skilled or apt at staying focused during constant interuptions.

I think the questions should be posed only after the lawyer has presented his/her case-
that's the best way to evaluate each lawyers argument. ask questions after he/she has finished.
imho..

This is the first time since Thomas was confirmed that I have totally
agreed with something he has said.

[db0255]

Dont' know much about Thomas, and I'm sure if I read his opinions I would disagree with him, but I feel him on this issue. Seems legit that he actually listens, but I'm sure the other justices get just as much out of it by asking questions.­...everybo­dy's different.­..

[dancucich]

I often wondered why he never asks questions.
Then, I found out watching the c-span documentary on the scotus
that the the two lawyers arguing only have 30 minutes to present
their case-and they often get interrupted 50 times in 30 minutes.

Justice Thomas explained on the SCOTUS DVD that he doesnt think its
instructive to repeatedly interrupt lawyers with questions, and disrupt
their presentation, and their train of thought.


He said he would prefer to hear the attorney out-then ask questions.
He disagrees with rapid fire questions where the lawers
rarely get even one uninterupted paragraph without being peppered|
with 2, 3 ,4 or more questions. the other 8 Justices even interupt each
others' questions.

unfortunately, there is no time to ask qurestions after the lawyer
finishes his/her presentation. That's appalling!

The lawyers are treated like callers to a right wing talk show-
continually interupted-the Justices cant possibly evaluate
the lawyers' arguments in such a chaotic format.
No wonder there are so many cuckoo decsions!!

I am not a conservative and I disagree with most of Thomas' opinions;
but I think he absolutely right on this issue.

[amati1684]

Clarence Thomas does not appear to possess the intellectual fire-power to judge a dog show much less sit on the Supreme Court.. He's even more of a poster child for term limits than Scalia...b­ut he has a cushy position for life, so all he has to do is show up, put on a robe and stay awake for a few hours. Nice work if you can get it.

[Disdain]

I'm guessing that in your opinion, his education, work experience mean absolutely nothing but same education and experience in the white justices qualifies them?

[HippieDippieWeatherman]

Anita Hill and pubic hair on coke cans aside, another reason Sen. Ted Kennedy opposed Thomas so vociferously was that, like Bork, he felt he was not qualified to sit on the SC. He certainly seems incompetent when he's speaking, and his few written opinions lack heft and credibility. Like Scalia, he's a one trick pony: "Whatever Ginsburg's for, I'm against it."

[carlosgriffin]

Huh? Most of Thomas' opinions have been brilliant. I hope you get bounced off this forum for being raclst.

[corte33]

Thomas is a place holder. He's your token black until they can replace him with a real justice.

[Disdain]

OF course he's a token. Black man are not known to be as educated as their white counterpart!

[Beki345]

Thomas was appointed because the first Pres. Bush needed to replace our first black Supreme Court Justice (Marshall) with ANOTHER black Supreme Court Justice. Since Thomas had headed up the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from1982–90, he seemed to be the perfect choice. Don't forget about Affirmative Action! He was barely approved because of the Anita Hill incident, but made it by a 52-48 vote. After all, who's going to believe a brilliant black female attorney/law professor when she says that her boss, who is up for Supreme Court Justice, sexually harassed her? How ridiculous! One more shining moment in our government's history.

[frankath]

Ah...as much as I dislike Justice Thomas' views, he is one guy that gives me that "shudder of embarrassment" moment. Back during his confirmation hearings, we were listening to the news in a carpool of young teens. One of my neighbor's daughters defended Thomas, saying she didn't understand what the big deal was, and I made a smart-aleck, libby remark back about sexual harrassment. I found out later that my neighbor was a good friend of Just. Thomas' wife. She never treated me the same way after that, and I don't blame her. Politics in the abstact is ONE thing, but hurting feelings is another. I wish we could ALL remember that.

[LordByron13]

So its more important not to hurt someone's feelings, than to get them to see that they are possibly defending someone who sexually harasses his co-workers or underlings? In my opinion, I think you're better off.

Hurting someone's feelings, just for the sake of it, is never right.
Hurting someone's feelings, by explaining to them the reality of the situation, is what I call 'incidental contact'..­.probably why the the phrase 'the truth hurts' was coined in the first place.

[SteveDenver]

Thomas has made a career of supporting his former employers and related industries. He wrote the majority opinion allowing Monsanto to patent life forms -- the first ruling of its kind in human history.

I would classify him as "incurious"

[HowietheScreamer]

This is what happens when you put unqualified people on the bench. He has to get his questions approved by Scalia, and well... Tony's a busy guy. Bada bing bada bam. There you go.

[sparafucilli]

Minds shaped like coke bottles don't function normally.