-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.
I don’t think that Clarence Thomas should be a Supreme Court justice. Anyone who hasn’t asked any questions from the bench in six years is acting irresponsibly. He has one of the most important jobs in the United States, but he doesn’t treat it with the respect and devotion that he should. He unfairly played a deciding role in the Bush v. Gore decision – his wife was intimately involved in the Bush campaign, contributing to the corruption of that decision. Such a man does not deserve to be on the Supreme Court. You can read more of my thoughts on this at my blog, http://www.collamuse.blogspot.com.
Sorry, mahtso, I should have been a bit clearer in that response. It was hasty upon waking from an Easter lunch induced coma. 😀 In general, yes you are correct, but SCOTUS is different. They are not just a court of appeal (although that is the bulk of their function), but can operate as a court of first impression depending upon the nature of the claim. The Constitution grants SCOTUS original jurisdiction in cases affecting ambassadors (and other diplomats) and in cases in which a state is a party.
That’s better.
mahtso,
In general, yes, but SCOTUS is different. They are not just a court of appeal (although that is the bulk of their function), but can operate as a court of first impression depending upon the nature of the claim.
Using my new medium the radio,I’m hearing some grumbling about all these 5 t0 4 decisions and peoples perception of a “fair & balanced”court.
Firefly,
I have another take on the consequences than yours.
What the five have said is that the rule of arbitrariness governs.
Which means no WSer will ever be stripped search. His manner, ID, and speech will guarantee that.
Reason?
He can exert vindicative retribution through the guard’s superiors, who can use whatever arbitrary, loosely defined rule to bust the guard for good.
Power rules. And nothing is more powerful than money.
Money has always the law on its side. Why do you think there is a lawyer corps—-well at least one reason, eh boys?
I hope I live to see the day that at least a few of the Wall St. crooks who brought down our economy with their reckless investments will be “perp-walked” off to prison where they will be strip searched in accordance with the new “Florence” decision by The Gang of Five at the U.S. Supreme Court (including Clarence Thomas). That might make some of these Wall St. crooks think twice before ripping off the American taxpayers again.
(BTW, I am horrified by the Florence decision, but think a strip search or two might stop the Wall St. thugs from doing their dirty deeds again — they think they are so godlike and strip searches might bring them back down to where the rest of us live.)
OT(sort of) question;
For the lawyers…is it normal, or expected, in a NOT the supreme court…for a Judge to not ask any questions? In the face of conflicting information that is…..
And do they ever address the people who are not the lawyers? ie to clarify information? Or is that rare?
post facto, usch.
Eniobob,
Thanks. In return, a quote from a related article:
““Maintaining safety and order at detention centers requires the expertise of correctional officials, who must have substantial discretion to devise reasonable solutions to problems,” wrote Justice Anthony M. Kennedy for the court’s majority.”
Which is just as hazy a constitutional floor as you can establish.
What are the degrees of discretion and the limits of reasonable solutions?
Was that a limited rule or was that a carte blanche to force of any kind when it suits them? Oh, yes, you are thinking about the murder power of the executive branch without the usual due process. Me, too. And they don’t need drones in county jail. Even the idea of holding a non-criminal defendant is also ridiculous.
And “maintaining safety and order” seems to be the driving force and the rule for law “enforcement” in the George II post factor world.
BTW:Something here in Jersey,he seemed to have kept his questions to himself.
N.J. man who lost strip-search legal battle says Supreme Court ruling ‘doesn’t make any sense’
Published: Friday, April 06, 2012, 7:59 PM Updated: Saturday, April 07, 2012, 10:12 AM
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/04/nj_man_in_strip_search_case_br.html
Mahtso,
Would eliminate all of the sound bites and half the rest if applied.
“He’s an incurious man who reads the briefs, thinks they contain all the information he needs to render a decision, and has no questions.”
The briefs should contain all the information. Whether these all do is another question.
“It really isn’t an attractive quality in someone who is supposed to be serving as an impartial trier of fact.”
I am under the impression that a court of appeals is not supposed to be a “trier of fact” but rather is supposed to be correcting errors of law. Am I mistaken?
“If he could have, he would have; but he didn’t, so he can’t.”
Argumentum e silentio, false dichotomy and fallacy of simple cause.
Unwillingness and inability are not equivalent states and to discount one is to oversimplify the causation. To say, “If he could have, he would have; but he didn’t, so he can’t” also creates a false dichotomy by imposing the condition “if he could have, he would have”. “If he could have” is an irrelevant and manifestly false condition. He’s a SCOTUS Justice. Of course he had the authority to question. It’s part of the job description. He could have and didn’t are the facts and whether that failure to act is a function of unwillingness or inability as a matter of causation is an open question. “He could have as a matter of authority, but he didn’t. He didn’t so either he cannot as a matter of ability or will not as a matter of proclivity” is logical. To say, “If he could have, he would have; but he didn’t, so he can’t” is the very portrait of the fallacy of argument from silence. Thomas simply failed to evidence and there is more than one option to choose from in causation. In Thomas’ case, it appears to be an unknown as to whether his silence is a combination of both inability and proclivity or the province of a single cause.
Mespo, et al, Thomas is still angry at being confronted by/over Anita Hill. Not only a piss poor Justice. A rather tawdry excuse for a human being. Many, most, of us have foibles. Few can get them excused at the level Thomas has.
Up With Chris Hayes: Judicial review along party lines
April 8
Nan Aron, President of the Alliance for Justice, joins the conversation on judicial review after conservatives this week criticized President Obama for his comments on the Supreme Court.
http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/judicial-review-along-party-lines/6vgm8qy
Justice Thomas: “I think that when somebody’s talking, somebody ought to listen.”
Translation: “Somebody ought to listen to themselves talking.”
Usually, when someone speaks, someone else can, or possibly should, listen. It really helps to distinguish one person (the speaker) from another person (the listener). English provides all the linguistic resources necessary to make this distinction. Not that Justice Thomas would consider availing himself of them. Here his infrequent practice speaking demonstrates its own unfortunate consequences. Of Justice Thomas’s putative ability to speak, then, we can only conclude on the basis of the evidence:
“If he could have, he would have; but he didn’t, so he can’t.”
Some of Justice Thomas’ other ponderous thoughts?:
A stitch in time saves nine…
A bird in the hand is better than two in the bush…
A penny saved is a penny earned
…
Thomas is but a token, with a wry twist, to the South.
One mind less makes the Court easier to control.
The Chief Justice gets to fancify his robe. Can’t the others bear sponsor badges and slogans like “Recontructionism Forever”?
Just as well Thomas doesn’t speak. He would be reciting Rush Limpballs talking points.