Clarence Thomas To Other Supreme Court Justices: Be Quiet

TUSCALOOSA, Ala. — Clarence Thomas, the justice long known as the silent member of the Supreme Court, criticized his colleagues Friday for badgering attorneys rather than letting them speak during oral arguments.

Thomas – who hasn't asked a lawyer a question during arguments in nearly four years – said he and the other eight justices virtually always know where they stand on a case by reading legal briefs before oral arguments.

"So why do you beat up on people if you already know? I don't know, because I don't beat up on 'em. I refuse to participate. I don't like it, so I don't do it," Thomas said during an appearance before law students at the University of Alabama.

Thomas didn't name names, but fellow conservative Justice Antonin Scalia is generally considered the court's most aggressive questioner during oral arguments. President Barack Obama's lone nominee so far, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, isn't afraid to ask questions either.

Thomas scoffed at the idea that the justices try to use questions to influence the opinions of fellow members of the court.

"All nine of us are in the same building," he said. "If we want to sway each other we know where we are. We don't need oral arguments to do that. It doesn't make any sense to me."

Thomas spoke briefly to the students before answering questions during a nearly 1 and 1/2 session, ranging over issues including the confirmation process and the court's makeup.

A conservative nominated by then-President George H.W. Bush, Thomas was sworn in only after a bruising confirmation fight that included sexual harassment allegations he always has denied.

He compared Senate confirmation to selecting the referees for a college football game in hopes of getting favorable calls for one team or the other.

"That's all based on a particular outcome you want. That is the antithesis of judging. You're corrupting your process," he said. "I think the confirmation process is both unnecessary, it's uninformed with respect to what the court actually does and it's very dangerous."

A native of Georgia and the only current justice from the South, Thomas said the court is too dominated by Ivy League lawyers and lacks regional diversity. People constantly worry about racial, gender and ethnic diversity, he said, and home states matter, too.

"My goal is to have a court that is fair, and I think it's fair when we are fair in selecting people from all parts of the country, from all walks of life," Thomas said.

Thomas graduated from the Yale University law school. In all, eight of the nine current justices graduated from Ivy League schools.

Comments

[Mulvaney]

He does have a point. Does oral argument before the Court really change things? Will Scalia switch his vote because counsel has answered his questions.

[Vxx]

Its called "getting your thoughts or certain positions into the transcripts", Clarence. The papers you write at the end aren't *discussions*, they're just your assertions based on case law.

Just another reason many people wonder why you're sitting there..... :P

[aposey]

Your a racist.

[koyak23]

Your mean

[cybexg]

ah...Engli­sh counts...p­lease review the usage of you're and your

[Vxx]

Amazing how a three word post can say so much about its author.... :)

[KrisConwell]

You're redundant. Posting "your [sic] a racist" after every anti-Thomas post is not going to win any points. How about stating a case?

[Burkelbile]

Your(sic) illiterate
Your(sic) a race-baiter

[Eris23]

He's the only sitting judge on the Supreme Court to get "not qualified" votes, and absolutely no "well qualified" votes from the Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary at the American Bar Association. 'Nuff said.

[aposey]

Your a racist.

[frankath]

"Your" WHAT is racist?

If you meant the contraction "you're", meaning "you are", say so. Otherwise we're sitting here wondering what the previous poster has that is racist. Once is a goof - twice is, well...som­ething else.

No fan of Justice Thomas here, but in this case, what he said about judicial opinions is probably true.

[montestruc]

Other than that the ABA is biased.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/06/originalism-liberal-bias-opinions-columnists-aba.html

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/8/6/164752.shtml

"Controlling for credentials, Clinton nominees have more than 10 times better odds of getting a unanimous well-qualified rating than similarly credentialed Bush appointees, Lengren wrote. "Just being nominated by Clinton instead of Bush is a stronger positive variable than any other credential or than all other credentials put together.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract-id=1368891

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Bar_Association

"The process has been accused by some (including the Federalist Society) of having a liberal bias.[10][­11][12] For example, the ABA gave Ronald Reagan's judicial nominees Richard Posner and Frank H. Easterbrook low "qualified/not qualified" ratings; later, the ABA gave Bill Clinton judicial nominees with similar resumes "well qualified" ratings.[3­] Meanwhile, Judges Posner and Easterbrook have gone on to become the two most highly-cited judges in the federal appellate judiciary.­[13]"

So much for an ABA review.

[sdwillie]

Yes, cite the Federalist Society, a conservative organization and their accusations of bias. Nothing makes a stronger argument than citing the claims of a biased organization as evidence.

So much for Reagan and Bush nominees.

[cannante]

yes yes yes, here we have reasoning that duns scotus couldn't fault....

why should anybody be interested in the inner-workings of the minds of those on the supreme court?

when we have to endure their decisions with our life's blood, some people feel comfortable knowing what was going on in their minds.

but then again you have to be intellecutally curious...­. and there is no interest in this writer to re-live what justice thomas finds intellectually curious.

[treadway123]

My mom said," Only God knows all the ans., an humans have to ask questions to know the ans"

[socatrini]

I know that this is a very simplistic quote given the context that we are dealing here but somehow I think that it is appropriate. As a matter of fact I found two quotes!!!!!
“It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.” Mark Twain.....­.and

“A wise man changes his mind, a fool never”

Spanish Proverb quotes

Enough said about this fool

[yako]

Thomas had opened his mouth and has removed all doubt. Lol.

[Observer963]

I found another one!
I have never been hurt by what I have not said. Calvin Coolidge

[socatrini]

Don't agree. I there is injustice and you don't speak out about it, you are part of the problem and you are hurting yourself and others. Also as a direct contradiction check this out.......­........

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." -
-- Thomas Jefferson

[TRichards]

I, for one, have opinions on most things that come up in my life. But, I also ask a lot of questions about them. Why? Well, not to browbeat anyone. I'm curious as to whether the person has anything to offer that would change my mind. It doesn't happen all that often, but it DOES happen. And those occasions when I've learned to see something from a new slant are exciting enough that I continue to ask -- just in case.

It's unfortunate that this is evidently a concept with which Judge Thomas is unfamiliar. Popeye said, "I am what I yam and that's all that I yam." Judge Thomas says, "I decide what I decide and that's all I need to know."

Sad.

[beauboy]

The selection of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court was perhaps the largest miscarriage of justice to Black people over the past 50 years. We had a Black Supreme Court Justice, Thurgood Marshall, who earned the respect of people from all walks of life, ande most certainly from the African American Community. To the Black Community Clarence Thomas is viewed as a justice that is opposed to the things we see as remedies to overcome centuries old discriminitory laws and practices. During the recent confirmation hearing for Justice Sotomayor, the question of having a diverse court was mentioned numerous times, and occasionally, someone would mention the fact we already have one African American Justice. That is so unfair to the African American citizens of this country, and for people of all races who believe in equality and social justice for all.

len williams

[JHawkKC]

I have always admired Clarence Thomas. He is a man of great wisdom and I am proud of him as a Supreme Court Justice. He does berate the attorneys and finds it foolish that others do. The briefs are written and the attorneys have been given time to state their case. What good does it do to berate them on one side or the other. It is only done as showmanship and Clarence is above that.

Thank you Clarence Thomas for being an honorable judge.

[cannante]

since this supreme court justice is all into fallacy, here is one of my own:

AD HOMINEM:

the only shows he berates are the ones in strip clubs

[aposey]

Your a racist.

[saltgirl]

Thomas: "...he (Thomas) and the other eight justices virtually always know where they stand on a case by reading legal briefs before oral arguments.­" Figures. I wonder what Thomas is thinking about while "oral" arguments are occurring?

[bryanetahoma]

I agree with Justice Thomas that the system does seem sort of corrupt, but I can't believe that he openly admitted that he makes up his decisions on a case with the case briefings, before the Oral arguments have even started.

[joyce2]

Why even have oral arguments if the decision is already made seems as- backwards to me.I thought oral arguments were to present your side of things and a decision was made after.I would hope that is the case and not as Thomas says.That is not justice in any sense of the word.

[jajenkins]

I despise Clarence Thomas.

But he is absolutely right.

The reason we have oral arguments is because court proceedings are public and a record is kept of them. Deliberations on the other hand are private. And anyone who thinks the justices don't make up their minds based on the briefs is naive. By the time the case reaches the Supreme Court (which can take a decade in some instances) there are no surprises anymore, there are no "BINGO" moments left - the case has already been argued to death.

Oral argument has only recently (last 30 years) been a back and forth exchange of the type we see now.

[cannante]

per my above post, that just shows it has value.

[aposey]

Your a racist.

[winnie47]

Justice Thomas: Why do you think there ARE oral arguments? The entire purpose is because law is not black and white, it is gray. As the country changes, law has to change to catch up. Just as the Constitution does. If we were to follow THAT document, unchanged and as originally written, YOU, sir, WOULD NOT be sitting on the SCOTUS bench. I guarantee it!

[diogeron]

While all politicians lie, or at least engage in hyperbole from time to time, there is no lie greater than G.H.W. Bush's statement that Clarence Thomas was the "most qualified person in the United States for the Supreme Court."

[jajenkins]

I despise Clarence Thomas.

But he is absolutely right.

The reason we have oral arguments is because court proceedings are public and a record is kept of them. Deliberations on the other hand are private. And anyone who thinks the justices don't make up their minds based on the briefs is naive. By the time the case reaches the Supreme Court (which can take a decade in some instances) there are no surprises anymore, there are no "BINGO" moments left - the case has already been argued to death.

Oral argument has only recently (last 30 years) been a back and forth exchange of the type we see now.

[JayDDrew]

So we hear it from his mouth that Clarence Thomas practices the George W. Bush method of making a decision - give me as little information as possible, don't confuse me with nuances, then let me make a quick and decisive decision. Even if I'm worng, I've already moved on.
This is a perfect example of why the constitution should be maneded to put term limits on Supreme Court justices - 18 years would be a suggestion. That way, each president gets to nominate two justices during his term. Or even consider 9 years, and let no decision be reversed within a certain period of time. That way, swings in the White House won't result in whiplash changes in the interpretation of the law.
Any lawyers want to make a comment or suggestion?

[hatmadder]

Given the care with which the Supreme Court chooses cases to review, the important issues that it deliberates, and even the place of the court in the progress of human justice, what a pity to have a justice like Clarence Thomas who cannot contribute to the debates with intellectual curiosity, rigor, and gusto. Socrates would roll his eyes in disgust and call for another batch of hemlock.

[poster1122]

It's not that he's not contributing to the debate. None of his colleagues have even made that suggestion.

His problem with the current methodology is that he views it as a game of air hockey with the arguing lawyers being used as the puck. The justices often already have their opinions made before oral arguments from the brief, and he views the Q&A as just a power exercise.

It's hard to argue that case if you actually read the transcripts of the hearings. It's often not about finding out any new information but about validating one's own. Also, the fact that the votes on most issues can be predicted beforehand does seem to reinforce Thomas' contention.

[cannante]

what is more,

like in a math test, those who do well most consistently check and re-check all the answers to be certain of the accuracy, up unto the moment the test is asked for.

[jrmarsh]

...and follow his lead?