Republican- nominated SCOTUS judge- 6 years of silence

[Dot Com]

Maybe its for the best
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/545532/

As the Supreme Court Justices today fired questions on the ‘Obamacare‘ mandate across the bench, one voice was notably – but perhaps predictably – silent. So far every Justice on the bench has spoken up on the health care law except for one: Justice Clarence Thomas.

“I refuse to participate. I don’t like it, so I don’t do it,” he said in 2009, according to The Associated Press.

What say you?

 

[Liability]

Maybe its for the best
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/545532/

As the Supreme Court Justices today fired questions on the ‘Obamacare‘ mandate across the bench, one voice was notably – but perhaps predictably – silent. So far every Justice on the bench has spoken up on the health care law except for one: Justice Clarence Thomas.

“I refuse to participate. I don’t like it, so I don’t do it,” he said in 2009, according to The Associated Press.

What say you?

So what?

He reads the briefs and he decides cases based on the law, the arguments and a review of the record from below.

If he philosophically believes that grilling lawyers at "oral argument" doesn't contribute to the decision making process significantly, is there some reason he has to engage in that process?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Maybe its for the best
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/545532/

As the Supreme Court Justices today fired questions on the ‘Obamacare‘ mandate across the bench, one voice was notably – but perhaps predictably – silent. So far every Justice on the bench has spoken up on the health care law except for one: Justice Clarence Thomas.

“I refuse to participate. I don’t like it, so I don’t do it,” he said in 2009, according to The Associated Press.

What say you?

Yawn. This is nothing new to those who pay attention to these things.

Nothing requires a justice to ask questions or participate in any way during oral arguments; those who belive there is some significance to him remaining silent have no idea what they're talking about.

 

[Dot Com]

Judging from the above posts, lets just do away w/ the oral- argument phase then. Discuss...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Judging from the above posts, lets just do away w/ the oral- argument phase then. Discuss...

Inane non-sequitur.

You have no point here. Move along.

 

[Dr.House]

Judging from the above posts, lets just do away w/ the oral- argument phase then. Discuss...

Do you ever step out of your Black & White world, Little Dottie Dumbfuck?

You post hoc ergo propter hoc arguments are weak...

 

[Liability]

Judging from the above posts, lets just do away w/ the oral- argument phase then. Discuss...

Justice Thomas doesn't place stock in them.

Others do.

So they can choose to engage in that process.

Justice Thomas is not required to join in.

Come on, Dot. You can do better than this. I just know you can.

 

[Ariux]

Black judges probably should keep their mouths shut, else everyone see that they're incompetent. The black judge before Thomas opened, Marshal, would open his mouth and reveal that he had the mental ability of a white child.

Actually, I do have some respect for Thomas. He's smarter than your average black. And, it could be argued that asking questions in court is over-rated. The justices know the "facts" before the hearing even starts. And, the votes of most of the justices can be determined with extreme certainly even before the hearing, so the talking is just window dressing.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I hope Thomas writes the majority opinion and overturns Wickard in the process

 

[saveliberty]

Opinions are the backbone of court decisions. Thomas has made his mark in that regard. I have listened to him speak here in town on two occassions and was very impressed both times. Shook hands with his wife at the college president's home once. She is impressive in her own right.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Opinions are the backbone of court decisions. Thomas has made his mark in that regard. I have listened to him speak here in town on two occassions and was very impressed both times. Shook hands with his wife at the college president's home once. She is impressive in her own right.

He's fucking brilliant and here's his dissent on Kelo

Justice Thomas, dissenting.

Long ago, William Blackstone wrote that “the law of the land … postpone even public necessity to the sacred and inviolable rights of private property.” 1 Commentaries on the Laws of England 134—135 (1765) (hereinafter Blackstone). The Framers embodied that principle in the Constitution, allowing the government to take property not for “public necessity,” but instead for “public use.” Amdt. 5. Defying this understanding, the Court replaces the Public Use Clause with a “ ‘[P]ublic [P]urpose’ ” Clause, ante, at 9—10 (or perhaps the “Diverse and Always Evolving Needs of Society” Clause, ante, at 8 (capitalization added)), a restriction that is satisfied, the Court instructs, so long as the purpose is “legitimate” and the means “not irrational,” ante, at 17 (internal quotation marks omitted). This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a “public use.”

I cannot agree. If such “economic development” takings are for a “public use,” any taking is, and the Court has erased the Public Use Clause from our Constitution, as Justice O’Connor powerfully argues in dissent. Ante, at 1—2, 8—13. I do not believe that this Court can eliminate liberties expressly enumerated in the Constitution and therefore join her dissenting opinion. Regrettably, however, the Court’s error runs deeper than this. Today’s decision is simply the latest in a string of our cases construing the Public Use Clause to be a virtual nullity, without the slightest nod to its original meaning. In my view, the Public Use Clause, originally understood, is a meaningful limit on the government’s eminent domain power. Our cases have strayed from the Clause’s original meaning, and I would reconsider them.

 

[saveliberty]

Am I hearing liberals correctly? You guys WANT oral arguments to be the main support for decisions? That would kill you on Obamacare.

 

[Katzndogz]

I hope Thomas writes the majority opinion and overturns Wickard in the process

It's up to the Chief Justice. The majority opinion is assigned. The dissent is assigned. Even if it's a unanimous opinion, a Justice is assigned a dissent.

 

[Liability]

I hope Thomas writes the majority opinion and overturns Wickard in the process

It's up to the Chief Justice. The majority opinion is assigned. The dissent is assigned. Even if it's a unanimous opinion, a Justice is assigned a dissent.

Why would there be an assignment for a dissent in a unanimous decision?

 

[esquire]

Maybe its for the best
Six Years of Silence for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas - ABC News[/url]

As the Supreme Court Justices today fired questions on the ‘Obamacare‘ mandate across the bench, one voice was notably – but perhaps predictably – silent. So far every Justice on the bench has spoken up on the health care law except for one: Justice Clarence Thomas.

“I refuse to participate. I don’t like it, so I don’t do it,” he said in 2009, according to The Associated Press.

What say you?

As an attorney, one that has practiced in front of more state and federal appellate courts than I care to remember, oral arguments mean very little at the appellate stage. Your idea of oral arguments is likely one created from television shows; which more often than not take place at the trial level. The issues have already been hashed out at the trial level. Just to educate some of you, the purpose of appellate court is not to hear direct evidence, but rather to determine whether the lower court made an incorrect legal determination. Therefore, oral arguments mean very little when the lower court case, case briefs, and the appellate brief already lay out every single issue, fact, authority, etc. I have come across many judges, both republican and democrat, that sit back and listen to the argument and read all of the material they have been presented with without asking very many (if any) questions.

Justice Clarence Thomas subscribes to this method of adjudication. It's not news; it's really just something opponents of Justice Thomas' like to point out, when in fact it's quite ignorant of them because it's actually very normal.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What say you?

The only thing I can credit Justice Thomas with is at least being honest enough to admit he’s a partisan ideologue and rightist hack. He planned on ruling the ACA un-Constitutional before it was even signed into law.

He already knows how he’s going to vote on every case – no hearings, deliberations, or oral arguments necessary.

Justice Thomas is a radical reactionary; he’s a man of the 18th Century, the 19th Century being ‘too modern’ for him. That was made clear in his amusing ‘concurring dissent’ in McDonald when he argued the privileges or immunities clause of the 14th Amendment should be used to incorporate the 2nd Amendment to the states. Even Scalia rejected that nonsense.

 

[deaddogseye]

Maybe its for the best
Six Years of Silence for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas - ABC News

As the Supreme Court Justices today fired questions on the ‘Obamacare‘ mandate across the bench, one voice was notably – but perhaps predictably – silent. So far every Justice on the bench has spoken up on the health care law except for one: Justice Clarence Thomas.

“I refuse to participate. I don’t like it, so I don’t do it,” he said in 2009, according to The Associated Press.

What say you?

Yawn. This is nothing new to those who pay attention to these things.

Nothing requires a justice to ask questions or participate in any way during oral arguments; those who belive there is some significance to him remaining silent have no idea what they're talking about.

Agreed. Oral argument is meaningless. It is a vestige of days long gone by and is nothing but theater. They decide these things on the breifs -- as they should -- and their own analysis. But for the tradition that we relflexively cling to most jurists would probably support abolishing oral argument

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Oral arguments...because you forgot to write it in the brief?

 

[Jackson]

I guess I am the only person who is troubled by the fact that during his entire SCOTUS career he never had the need to ask a question to clarify or question an intent of any of the participants.

 

[saveliberty]

I need a link to Thomas never asking a question from the bench. The article in question mentions six years, but Thomas' tenure is longer than that.