Clarence Thomas -- The Man Whom You Cannot Tell Whether He Is There

[Madeline]

WASHINGTON — The anniversary will probably be observed in silence.

A week from Tuesday [on February 22, 2011], when the Supreme Court returns from its midwinter break and hears arguments in two criminal cases, it will have been five years since Justice Clarence Thomas has spoken during a court argument.

If he is true to form, Justice Thomas will spend the arguments as he always does: leaning back in his chair, staring at the ceiling, rubbing his eyes, whispering to Justice Stephen G. Breyer, consulting papers and looking a little irritated and a little bored. He will ask no questions.

In the past 40 years, no other justice has gone an entire term, much less five, without speaking at least once during arguments, according to Timothy R. Johnson, a professor of political science at the University of Minnesota. Justice Thomas’s epic silence on the bench is just one part of his enigmatic and contradictory persona. He is guarded in public but gregarious in private. He avoids elite universities but speaks frequently to students at regional and religious schools. In those settings, he rarely dwells on legal topics but is happy to discuss a favorite movie, like “Saving Private Ryan.”

Does Clarence Thomas's Silence Matter? - Room for Debate - NYTimes.com

Can a justice effectively perform his duties without participating in oral argument? Does questioning the lawyers in court make much difference, or is it mostly a ritual, with the justices' thinking pretty much set beforehand?

Five years having passed since Justice Thomas last asked a question at oral argument, we can turn our attention to a more significant anniversary that may arrive this summer. Barring any surprises, this June will mark the end of Justice Thomas’s 20th term on the Supreme Court without writing a truly significant majority opinion. That second milestone goes a long way toward explaining, and justifying, the first.

There is little evidence that Justice Thomas is open to persuasion or wants to persuade others.

Oral argument is not a useless exercise. It is an occasion for the advocates to frame the stakes of their arguments in terms too easily obscured by the dense briefing they supply to the court in advance. It allows the justices to obtain direct answers from lawyers on questions the lawyers evaded, whether artfully or inadvertently, in their papers. It also lets the justices preview their reasoning to their colleagues, with whom they might not have discussed the case in advance. That preview then enables both the lawyers and the other justices either to support or to interrogate an argument that might not have surfaced previously.

Alas, some of these uses for oral argument are in tension with each other. Anyone who has observed a recent Supreme Court argument will note that even experienced advocates can at times have difficulty completing a sentence, much less clarifying dozens of pages of briefing, without constant, often unrelated, sometimes simultaneous questioning from the bench. Justice Thomas is right that adding one more voice to the noise would not help matters.

More generally, though, many of the reasons for oral argument assume that the justices are either keen to persuade others of their views or are open to persuasion themselves. There is little evidence that Justice Thomas fits this description. He is a judicial iconoclast, opposed to following constitutional precedents with which he disagrees and unwilling to moderate his positions to achieve consensus. He is the court’s most frequent lone dissenter, and to assign an important majority opinion to him is to risk losing your majority because of his uncompromising language.

It is difficult for a silent justice to win over colleagues, but he may not care to.

The Lone Dissenter - Room for Debate - NYTimes.com

Is Clarence Thomas' silence adding or detracting value to the SCOTUS?

Your thoughts?

 

[M14 Shooter]

What a fallacious, self-defeating farce.
Whoever wrote this started with a conclusion and tried to find 'facts' to fit it.
How ironic...

Can a justice effectively perform his duties without participating in oral argument?

Yes. His duty, after all, is to judge the case on it merits. Nothing in that necessitates that he ask any questions or make any comment during oral argument.

Does questioning the lawyers in court make much difference, or is it mostly a ritual, with the justices' thinking pretty much set beforehand?

False dichotomy. Not ansking questions in no way necessitates that a decision regarding the case has already been made.

Five years having passed since Justice Thomas last asked a question at oral argument, we can turn our attention to a more significant anniversary that may arrive this summer.

Given the above.... so what?

Barring any surprises, this June will mark the end of Justice Thomas’s 20th term on the Supreme Court without writing a truly significant majority opinion.

"Truly significant"... according to whom?
And... so what? Even if true, how is that significant?

That second milestone goes a long way toward explaining, and justifying, the first.

Exactly, how?

There is little evidence that Justice Thomas is open to persuasion or wants to persuade others.

There is NO evidence presented here that he is not, and does not.

Oral argument is not a useless exercise. It is an occasion for the advocates to frame the stakes of their arguments in terms too easily obscured by the dense briefing they supply to the court in advance.

And so, a justice has the responsibility to ask questions... in order to assist the advocates in doing so? Isn't that -their- responsibility?

It allows the justices to obtain direct answers from lawyers on questions the lawyers evaded, whether artfully or inadvertently, in their papers

That's opposing council's responsibility, not the court's.

It also lets the justices preview their reasoning to their colleagues...

This is silly - there's no reason do to this, given that they deliberate the issue.
Further, to 'preview' your reasoning necessitates that you have predisposed yourself to a certain line of reasoning - that is, you have already gone a long way to making up your mind - if you havent done so comepletely.

That preview then enables both the lawyers and the other justices either to support or to interrogate an argument that might not have surfaced previously.

Again: This burden lies - completely- on the parties involved in the case.
To 'guide' the parties necessitates that you have a certain way you'd like the case to go.

More generally, though, many of the reasons for oral argument assume that the justices are either keen to persuade others of their views or are open to persuasion themselves.

To persuade others means that you have determined your position in the matter
Just a few lines ago, Thomas was accused of having his mind already made up, with said accusation the cornerstone of an argument against him.

There is little evidence that Justice Thomas fits this description.

The "description" is self-defeating, and hinges on a false premise.

He is a judicial iconoclast...

As is anyone that attempts to pursuade the other justices during ral argument or 'guide' the parties to the case in one direction or the other.
Given the standard set above, iconoclasty is a -requirement- of a justice on the Supreme court.

opposed to following constitutional precedents with which he disagrees...

If you think they are unsound, why follow them?
If precedent should -always- be followed, why does Plessey not still stand?

and unwilling to moderate his positions to achieve consensus.

:roll:
As if this is necessary

He is the court’s most frequent lone dissenter...

:roll:
As if this means anything.

and to assign an important majority opinion to him is to risk losing your majority because of his uncompromising language.

Yes... because -you- can speak to the reasoning behind the majority as to why they choose who they choose to write the opinion.

It is difficult for a silent justice to win over colleagues, but he may not care to.

Thomas is silent during deliberation? How do you know?
Oh... you mean during oral arguments.
False premise, that oral arguments exist for justices to 'win over' other justices - something they can do only if they have made up their minds before hearing all the arguments presented.

 

[Madeline]

That was an outstanding reply, M14. As you might have guessed, I am not Thomas' biggest fan. It seems you are, or at least have a good grasp of appellate procedure.

What do you see as Thomas' contribution in the 20 years he's been on the Court?

 

[Trajan]

WASHINGTON — The anniversary will probably be observed in silence.

A week from Tuesday [on February 22, 2011], when the Supreme Court returns from its midwinter break and hears arguments in two criminal cases, it will have been five years since Justice Clarence Thomas has spoken during a court argument.

If he is true to form, Justice Thomas will spend the arguments as he always does: leaning back in his chair, staring at the ceiling, rubbing his eyes, whispering to Justice Stephen G. Breyer, consulting papers and looking a little irritated and a little bored. He will ask no questions.

In the past 40 years, no other justice has gone an entire term, much less five, without speaking at least once during arguments, according to Timothy R. Johnson, a professor of political science at the University of Minnesota. Justice Thomas’s epic silence on the bench is just one part of his enigmatic and contradictory persona. He is guarded in public but gregarious in private. He avoids elite universities but speaks frequently to students at regional and religious schools. In those settings, he rarely dwells on legal topics but is happy to discuss a favorite movie, like “Saving Private Ryan.”

Does Clarence Thomas's Silence Matter? - Room for Debate - NYTimes.com

Can a justice effectively perform his duties without participating in oral argument? Does questioning the lawyers in court make much difference, or is it mostly a ritual, with the justices' thinking pretty much set beforehand?

Five years having passed since Justice Thomas last asked a question at oral argument, we can turn our attention to a more significant anniversary that may arrive this summer. Barring any surprises, this June will mark the end of Justice Thomas’s 20th term on the Supreme Court without writing a truly significant majority opinion. That second milestone goes a long way toward explaining, and justifying, the first.

There is little evidence that Justice Thomas is open to persuasion or wants to persuade others.

Oral argument is not a useless exercise. It is an occasion for the advocates to frame the stakes of their arguments in terms too easily obscured by the dense briefing they supply to the court in advance. It allows the justices to obtain direct answers from lawyers on questions the lawyers evaded, whether artfully or inadvertently, in their papers. It also lets the justices preview their reasoning to their colleagues, with whom they might not have discussed the case in advance. That preview then enables both the lawyers and the other justices either to support or to interrogate an argument that might not have surfaced previously.

Alas, some of these uses for oral argument are in tension with each other. Anyone who has observed a recent Supreme Court argument will note that even experienced advocates can at times have difficulty completing a sentence, much less clarifying dozens of pages of briefing, without constant, often unrelated, sometimes simultaneous questioning from the bench. Justice Thomas is right that adding one more voice to the noise would not help matters.

More generally, though, many of the reasons for oral argument assume that the justices are either keen to persuade others of their views or are open to persuasion themselves. There is little evidence that Justice Thomas fits this description. He is a judicial iconoclast, opposed to following constitutional precedents with which he disagrees and unwilling to moderate his positions to achieve consensus. He is the court’s most frequent lone dissenter, and to assign an important majority opinion to him is to risk losing your majority because of his uncompromising language.

It is difficult for a silent justice to win over colleagues, but he may not care to.

The Lone Dissenter - Room for Debate - NYTimes.com

Is Clarence Thomas' silence adding or detracting value to the SCOTUS?

Your thoughts?

no wonder hes silent...if he speaks hes a jackass, if hes doesn't hes subject to scrutiny anyway.......can't win.

 

[Madeline]

So, you admit Thomas is a jackass, Trajan?

 

[Trajan]

So, you admit Thomas is a jackass, Trajan?

Uhm, no I don't thinks thats what I said...or thats not what I intended.

 

[CMike]

The way you know he is there is by his vote.

He doesn't need to steal a stage or spew off rhetoric.

 

[rightwinger]

Thomas is the Cal Ripken of SCOTUS

His record of being afraid to ask questions will last forever

 

[Madeline]

It would appear Thomas is the placeholder of SCOTUS. He says nothing, and he writes almost nothing. As I said, the man whom you almost cannot tell whether he is there.

 

[Madeline]

The way you know he is there is by his vote.

He doesn't need to steal a stage or spew off rhetoric.

Uh, 235 years of jurisprudence says he does. We reasonably expect leadership and legal philosophy from our Justices. Thomas is skipping out on his duties, IMO.

 

[rightwinger]

Thomas is just going to vote how Scalia tells him anyway...

Why does he need to ask questions?

 

[M14 Shooter]

That was an outstanding reply, M14. As you might have guessed, I am not Thomas' biggest fan. It seems you are, or at least have a good grasp of appellate procedure.

Thank you.

You can not like Thomas if you want - but the 'argument' you presented here is only slightly more compelling than arguing "He's Black!"

What do you see as Thomas' contribution in the 20 years he's been on the Court?

Easy:
He's come down on the right side of just about every decision, and he has, on more than one occasion, convinced others to do so as well, turning the result of that decision.

 

[Stephanie]

That was an outstanding reply, M14. As you might have guessed, I am not Thomas' biggest fan. It seems you are, or at least have a good grasp of appellate procedure.

What do you see as Thomas' contribution in the 20 years he's been on the Court?

It seems awfully funny Thomas is the only one out of them you HAVE a problem with.
It surly couldn't be because he is BLACK and you think he leans Conservative.?

 

[Madeline]

That was an outstanding reply, M14. As you might have guessed, I am not Thomas' biggest fan. It seems you are, or at least have a good grasp of appellate procedure.

Thank you.

You can not like Thomas if you want - but the 'argument' you presented here is only slightly more compelling than arguing "He's Black!"

What do you see as Thomas' contribution in the 20 years he's been on the Court?

Easy:
He's come down on the right side of just about every decision, and he has, on more than one occasion, convinced others to do so as well, turning the result of that decision.

I sense we may come to disagree on some issues, M14, LOL. However, set that aside. Lemme ask you, which Justices do you admire? I am a huge fan of Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis and Thurgood Marshall. I could not be, had any of them chosen to never speak and never write.

Thomas' contribution has, you must admit, been little more than voting. Frankly, you and I could vote. We never/rarely get to see his reasoning, and he has almost no body of work we can look to for his Giant Legal Mind. He's a cheat, IMO.

The function of the Supreme Court is not to decide a specific case. It is to interpret the constitution so that in future, similarly situated persons can order their conduct accordingly. Thomas does not add to the quantum of material any of us can look to for this purpose.

 

[manifold]

Maddie, why the hard-on for Justice Thomas? You do know we don't get to vote him out right?

 

[Liability]

Thomas is just going to vote how Scalia tells him anyway...

Why does he need to ask questions?

^ Yet another liberal bit of dishonesty that cannot be supported.

Very surprising that such bullshit is spouted by a person with the intellectual caliber and integrity of leftwinger.

Oh wait.

No. That's not surprising at all. Nevermind.

 

[Dr.House]

Thomas is just going to vote how Scalia tells him anyway...

Why does he need to ask questions?

I wouldn't complain about Thomas...

Baby Ruth Ginsberg hasn't really had a coherent thought since a bad acid trip in 1971....

 

[Madeline]

Maddie, why the hard-on for Justice Thomas? You do know we don't get to vote him out right?

I can go on like War And Peace as to why I so dislike the man, mani. I'm aware we cannot "vote him out". There's no precedent for removing a Justice from the bench, and I doubt there ever will be.

If there's a way, it is likely impeachment...trial by the Senate for High Crimes and Misdemeanors, whatever they may be. It'll almost certainly never happen, but mebbe he'll "retire early".

 

[Jroc]

That was an outstanding reply, M14. As you might have guessed, I am not Thomas' biggest fan. It seems you are, or at least have a good grasp of appellate procedure.

Thank you.

You can not like Thomas if you want - but the 'argument' you presented here is only slightly more compelling than arguing "He's Black!"

What do you see as Thomas' contribution in the 20 years he's been on the Court?

Easy:
He's come down on the right side of just about every decision, and he has, on more than one occasion, convinced others to do so as well, turning the result of that decision.

I sense we may come to disagree on some issues, M14, LOL. However, set that aside. Lemme ask you, which Justices do you admire? I am a huge fan of Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis and Thurgood Marshall. I could not be, had any of them chosen to never speak and never write.

Thomas' contribution has, you must admit, been little more than voting. Frankly, you and I could vote. We never/rarely get to see his reasoning, and he has almost no body of work we can look to for his Giant Legal Mind. He's a cheat, IMO.

The function of the Supreme Court is not to decide a specific case. It is to interpret the constitution so that in future, similarly situated persons can order their conduct accordingly. Thomas does not add to the quantum of material any of us can look to for this purpose.

We already coverd this. Do you search a subject before you start a thread? oh and your boy Thurgood Marshall was pretty quiet himself, read through this thread then get back to me.... thanks

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/155623-clarence-thomas-5-year-silence-9.html

 

[Madeline]

Thank you.

You can not like Thomas if you want - but the 'argument' you presented here is only slightly more compelling than arguing "He's Black!"


Easy:
He's come down on the right side of just about every decision, and he has, on more than one occasion, convinced others to do so as well, turning the result of that decision.

I sense we may come to disagree on some issues, M14, LOL. However, set that aside. Lemme ask you, which Justices do you admire? I am a huge fan of Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis and Thurgood Marshall. I could not be, had any of them chosen to never speak and never write.

Thomas' contribution has, you must admit, been little more than voting. Frankly, you and I could vote. We never/rarely get to see his reasoning, and he has almost no body of work we can look to for his Giant Legal Mind. He's a cheat, IMO.

The function of the Supreme Court is not to decide a specific case. It is to interpret the constitution so that in future, similarly situated persons can order their conduct accordingly. Thomas does not add to the quantum of material any of us can look to for this purpose.

We already coverd this. Do you search a subject before you start a thread? oh and your boy Thurgood Marshall was pretty quiet himself, read through this thread then get back to me.... thanks

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/155623-clarence-thomas-5-year-silence-9.html

WTF? This is your first post to this thread, Jroc. You have a point, make it. You dun like a thread, skip it.

Dun be an asshole.