Justice Thomas Speaks Out

-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is known for not asking questions during oral arguments. Thomas has not asked a question from the bench in 6 years and no other Supreme Court justice has made it through a single year without asking a question.

in an AP interview, he defended his silence. Thomas said the habit of frequent interruptions is unproductive and “I think that when somebody’s talking, somebody ought to listen.”

Thomas claims that most of the information is already in the briefs and amicus curiae, “and there are a few questions around the edges.”

They don’t call it an oral monologue. It’s called an oral argument. This is the opportunity for the Justices to test the validity and soundness of the attorney’s arguments. It would be a waste of time for attorneys to get up before the Court and simply recite their briefs.

Thomas concludes by saying “I don’t like to badger people.” Is that how he sees it? Either you remain utterly silent or you badger people? In logic, this is know as the False Dichotomy fallacy. This type of logical fallacy occurs when only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option.

H/T: The Hill, The Washington Post.

69 thoughts on “Justice Thomas Speaks Out

  1. “The point of Oral Argument is to discover facts and information that has not been included in the briefs, so it is stupid for Thomas to claim he doesn’t need to ask questions UNLESS one concludes that Thomas’ mind is already made up and he won’t be swayed by newly-revealed information.”

    All the information should be in the briefs.

    I can’t say whether J. Thomas or the others have their minds made up , but many of the questions are not asked to discover facts and information, but are asked because the questioner is trying to make points with the other J’s (i.e., arguably because the J asking the questions has made up her mind).

  2. Think this is not who you think it is, Gene! I got into this when I heard others were cloning similar names. From my recollection no information has been divulged from this end. If you want to call you have my number. I did try and call you on the one i had 2 years ago and it just rings. Other than that, I have been watching what has been going on. No this is not a sockpuppet or it could be, depending on how you define socks.

  3. While I sleep, others post.

    Take Idealist707.5. He uses my moniker to denigrate me. NOT, my ideas, or my opinions, but my weaknesses. Not my offensively used weaknesses, but my innocuous ones.

    Where? On the patriarch photo comparison puzzle thread. Yesterday!

    Denigrating the handicapped, boring, mentally challenged, taking over threads “always”, and being one seeking too obviously friendship are his accusations.
    Assuming all this and more. what kind of humanity does he demonstrate?

    Doing it together with like-minded, pre-arranged or spontaneous, is more fun. So gather the vultures.

    Later, yesterday evening, he keeps the name to show he belongs to the sockpuppet gang.
    Why, because like all bullies he belongs to a gang. needing its support, not being able to attack in daylight under his own name without a mask.
    So, clad in an obviously sockpuppet name, he struts and swaggers to cast a chill among “the ordinary” people.

    His digs may have some merit. I am the first to admit and am thankful for them. But am doubtful that was his intention, but as GeneH of recent fame vv MM, would remind me, I am drawing too much out of too little evidence.

    Be what it may, that is my last acknowledgement of his existence.
    So those who read this, now know something of the mysterious appearance of an Idealist707 lookalike——calling itself 707.5

  4. One of my favorite sayings is “You don;t know what you don;t know and if you don;t know what you don;t know then you don;t know what to ask.”
    Think that sums up Thomas.

  5. One doesn’t have to badger the attorneys in trying to understand their points better. Can’t he try to understand their points better? Doesn’t he have any questions that would clarify his thinking or his understanding? Doesn’t he see any problems in their reasoning that he would like to see addressed.

Comments are closed.