Silence is golden

What do you think about the world?
Post Reply
User avatar
Siji
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4040
Joined: November 11, 2002, 5:58 pm
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: mAcK 624
PSN ID: mAcK_624
Wii Friend Code: 7304853446448491
Location: Tampa Bay, FL
Contact:

Silence is golden

Post by Siji »

Something about this concerns me.

Link
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Two years and 142 cases have passed since Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas last spoke up at oral arguments. It is a period of unbroken silence that contrasts with the rest of the court's unceasing inquiries.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas says he'd like to be known as the "listening justice."

Hardly a case goes by without eight justices peppering lawyers with questions. Oral arguments offer justices the chance to resolve nagging doubts about a case, probe its weaknesses or make a point to their colleagues.

Left, right and center, the justices ask and they ask and they ask. Sometimes they debate each other, leaving the lawyer at the podium helpless to jump in. "I think you're handling these questions very well," Chief Justice John Roberts quipped to a lawyer recently in the midst of one such exchange.

Leaning back in his leather chair, often looking up at the ceiling, Thomas takes it all in, but he never joins in.

He occasionally leans to his right to share a comment or a laugh with Justice Stephen Breyer. Less often, he talks to Justice Anthony Kennedy, to his immediate left.

Thomas, characteristically, declined to comment for this article. But in the course of his publicity tour for his autobiography, "My Grandfather's Son," the 59-year-old justice discussed his reticence on the bench on several occasions.

The questions may be helpful to the others, Thomas said, but not to him.

"One thing I've demonstrated often in 16 years is you can do this job without asking a single question," he told an adoring crowd at the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group.

The book tour showed that the topic comes up even among friendly audiences.

Indeed, Thomas' comment was provoked by this question: Why do your colleagues ask so many questions?

His response: "I did not plant that question. That's a fine question. When you figure out the answer, you let me know," he said.

The typical hourlong argument session can sometimes be difficult, even for a practiced questioner.

"I really would like to hear what those reasons are without interruption from all of my colleagues," Justice John Paul Stevens said at an argument in the fall.

The newest justice, Samuel Alito, has said he initially found it hard to get a question in sometimes amid all the former law professors on the court.

The last time Thomas asked a question in court was February 22, 2006, in a death penalty case out of South Carolina. A unanimous court eventually broadened the ability of death-penalty defendants to blame someone else for the crime.

In the past, the Georgia-born Thomas has chalked up his silence to his struggle as a teenager to master standard English after having grown up speaking Geechee, a dialect that thrived among descendants of former slaves on the islands off the South Carolina, Georgia and Florida coasts.

He also has said he will ask a pertinent question if his colleagues don't but sees no need to engage in the back-and-forth just to hear his own voice.

Lately, he has focused on the latter reason.

"If I think a question will help me decide a case, then I'll ask that question," he told C-SPAN's Brian Lamb in October. "Otherwise, it's not worth asking because it detracts from my job."

He talked in that same interview about descriptions of him as the silent justice.

"I can't really say that it's unfair to say that I'm silent in that context. I would like to, though, be referred to as the 'listening justice,' you know," Thomas said. "I still believe that, if somebody else is talking, somebody should be listening."

The following month, however, at an event sponsored by Hillsdale College in Michigan, Thomas was more combative when asked about oral arguments.

Suppose surgeons started discussing the merits of removing a gallbladder while in the operating room, Thomas said, as quoted by U.S. News & World Report. "You really didn't go in there to have a debate about gallbladder surgery," he said. Similarly, "we are there to decide cases, not to engage in seminar discussions."
User avatar
Midnyte_Ragebringer
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 7062
Joined: July 4, 2002, 1:59 pm
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: Daellyn
Location: Northeast Pennsylvania

Re: Silence is golden

Post by Midnyte_Ragebringer »

That's fantastic. Much can be learned by this. Nice to see a judge not trying to grandstand and pushing his own personal beliefs, but listening and judging based on the arguments made. Very inspiring.
User avatar
Kaldaur
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1850
Joined: July 25, 2002, 2:26 am
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: Kaldaur
Location: Illinois

Re: Silence is golden

Post by Kaldaur »

He's still daydreaming about Anita Hill.
User avatar
Fash
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4147
Joined: July 10, 2002, 2:26 am
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: sylblaydis
Location: A Secure Location

Re: Silence is golden

Post by Fash »

I have to disagree with Midnyte here...

Speaking purely from an IT background, the most important thing in the world is knowing the right questions to ask. If I were to consult on an issue and fail to ask any questions, the judgment or advice I offer would likely be shown incorrect in time. Having a base of knowledge on a topic allows you the ability to form pointed questions and nail down an issue. Most cases that reach the Supreme Court are not easy issues, so there are few better places for inquiry and debate.

With this undisputed story about Thomas, I think it's pretty obvious he is submitting the vote of someone else... He doesn't actually care about any of it. If he did, he would be asking questions.
Fash

--
Naivety is dangerous.
Sueven
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 3200
Joined: July 22, 2002, 12:36 pm

Re: Silence is golden

Post by Sueven »

I don't know if you guys know how the Supreme Court works at all, but the basics are this: The attorneys for the various parties all write really long and comprehensive briefs which are submitted to the Court, along with any amicus briefs that may be filed by interested parties who aren't party to the litigation. After these briefs are read through and digested, oral argument is held, which lasts one hour per case. Each side gets 30 minutes, with rare exceptions. The style of argument involves the attorney beginning a speech, generally with a few points he plans to make, but he will promptly be interrupted by the justices (except for Clarence) who will begin asking him questions about whatever it is THEY want to know about. Eventually time runs out and they move on. So the briefs, in addition to the record from the lower courts (and sometimes the justice's personal opinions about shit) form the basis of the case, and oral argument is generally used to clarify certain distinctions and perform hairsplitting of various kinds.

Thomas is absolutely silent during oral argument. He sits in his chair, generally leaning back, often staring at the ceiling. Once in awhile he talks to Breyer, who he sits next to. The other justices ask questions-- especially Scalia and Stevens, but the rest pipe up now and again as well-- and Thomas just hangs out.

He's discussed this issue in his autobiography, and his explanation is that his mind is generally made up based on the briefs alone (understandable, given how significant they are to the process as a whole) and his mind would not be changed by an attorney clarifying some minor point. He likes the idea of giving parties to a lawsuit the chance to come to Washington DC and say their piece.

A few months ago I had the opportunity to ask Scalia about this, mentioned Clarence's stance, and asked him what he found so valuable about asking so many questions (definitely the most loquacious on the Court). After I got out the line "Thomas says that he likes to give people a chance to come to Washington and say their piece..." Scalia exploded, responding "all that means is he's giving them a chance to come to Washington to regurgitate their briefs! What good does that do anybody?" And then he went on to claim that oftentimes the clarifications that are made in oral argument are actually useful to him, and do help him reach a decision ("why would I ask them otherwise?") He also said that he's argued with Thomas about this many times, and they both seem stuck in their positions.

Of course, that's half the story-- the other half is that questions can be designed to persuade the other Justices. Scalia and Stevens are both master diplomats in addition to top-level jurists, and they know which arguments will appeal to other Justices. Say Stevens is sympathetic to one litigant in a case, and he notices that this litigant makes minor use of an argument that he thinks is likely to appeal to Justice Kennedy. He may very well toss the attorney a softball question which gives them the opportunity to expound on that argument, hopefully tweaking Kennedy's interest and making him more likely to side with Stevens in the end. This kind of gamesmanship happens all the time, and you can see it in other Supreme Court contexts as well (for instance: If the Chief Justice is on the dissenting end of a decision, the most senior Justice on the majority side gets to assign who writes the opinion. That's Stevens. When Lawrence v. Texas came down, there was a narrow 5-4 majority in favor of declaring that consensual homosexual sodomy is protected by the due process clause, with Kennedy as the swing vote. Stevens had attracted Kennedy by using arguments which Kennedy himself is fond of, and then, as soon as he secured the 5-4 majority, assigned Kennedy to write the majority opinion, therefore assuring himself that (a) the final opinion was something that Kennedy would continue to support, and (b) preventing any possibility of Kennedy defecting to the other side based on dissatisfaction with an opinion that someone else was writing).

So, Scalia probably is getting substantive value out of his questions, but he's also certainly trying to play politics and sway the other Justices over to his point of view.

Take that all for what it's worth.

Edit to add: Scalia's best friend on the Court is Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
User avatar
Midnyte_Ragebringer
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 7062
Joined: July 4, 2002, 1:59 pm
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: Daellyn
Location: Northeast Pennsylvania

Re: Silence is golden

Post by Midnyte_Ragebringer »

Fash wrote:I have to disagree with Midnyte here...

Speaking purely from an IT background, the most important thing in the world is knowing the right questions to ask. If I were to consult on an issue and fail to ask any questions, the judgment or advice I offer would likely be shown incorrect in time. Having a base of knowledge on a topic allows you the ability to form pointed questions and nail down an issue. Most cases that reach the Supreme Court are not easy issues, so there are few better places for inquiry and debate.

With this undisputed story about Thomas, I think it's pretty obvious he is submitting the vote of someone else... He doesn't actually care about any of it. If he did, he would be asking questions.

That sucks that you would think if someone does their job in a different manner than you wish they did, it means they don't care about their job.

He is not in IT. LOL The people coming to him for help come with professionals (attorneys) who know the questions before you ask them.
User avatar
Animale
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 598
Joined: July 3, 2002, 2:45 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Raleigh

Re: Silence is golden

Post by Animale »

<shrug> When you are the butt of jokes at every law school across the country... perhaps you are not the worlds best Supreme Court Justice.

An example...

Justice Thomas does not like to dip his toe in the deep end of the intellectual pool. - Yale Law School Professor (his alma mater!)

Animale
Animale Vicioso
64 Gnome Enchanter
<retired>
60 Undead Mage
Hyjal <retired>
User avatar
Midnyte_Ragebringer
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 7062
Joined: July 4, 2002, 1:59 pm
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: Daellyn
Location: Northeast Pennsylvania

Re: Silence is golden

Post by Midnyte_Ragebringer »

Seems pretty racist to me.
User avatar
Animale
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 598
Joined: July 3, 2002, 2:45 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Raleigh

Re: Silence is golden

Post by Animale »

Whatever. Just because he's black doesn't make him any less of the intellectual lightweight on the current court.
Animale Vicioso
64 Gnome Enchanter
<retired>
60 Undead Mage
Hyjal <retired>
User avatar
Fash
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4147
Joined: July 10, 2002, 2:26 am
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: sylblaydis
Location: A Secure Location

Re: Silence is golden

Post by Fash »

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:That sucks that you would think if someone does their job in a different manner than you wish they did, it means they don't care about their job.

He is not in IT. LOL The people coming to him for help come with professionals (attorneys) who know the questions before you ask them.
Not any job... doing this specific judicial position in a different manner than anyone else and one that defies logic.

Does the 'pubic hair on the coke can' guy just have all the answers? He's that fucking informed he has no questions to ask? Come on.
Fash

--
Naivety is dangerous.
User avatar
Leonaerd
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 3023
Joined: January 10, 2005, 10:38 am
Location: Michigan

Re: Silence is golden

Post by Leonaerd »

Fash wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:That sucks that you would think if someone does their job in a different manner than you wish they did, it means they don't care about their job.

He is not in IT. LOL The people coming to him for help come with professionals (attorneys) who know the questions before you ask them.
Not any job... doing this specific judicial position in a different manner than anyone else and one that defies logic.

Does the 'pubic hair on the coke can' guy just have all the answers? He's that fucking informed he has no questions to ask? Come on.
Perhaps after having absorbed the other justices' relevant questions, he's made his mind up as much as it would have been, had he asked the questions instead. I don't know anything about the supreme court but I would imagine he's fairly capable of doing what he's paid to do.
Sueven
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 3200
Joined: July 22, 2002, 12:36 pm

Re: Silence is golden

Post by Sueven »

I don't know that it's really fair to say that Thomas is a poor justice or an intellectual lightweight. He absolutely-- no doubt-- has the most simplistic judicial philosophy of anybody on the Court, but it's much like Ron Paul in that it's a straightforward philosophy which is in opposition to much conventional wisdom. Why ask questions about church/state separation cases when he doesn't believe in separation of church and state? Why ask questions about substantive due process cases when he doesn't believe in substantive due process?
Wiever
Star Farmer
Star Farmer
Posts: 417
Joined: October 15, 2002, 11:56 pm
Location: Mission Beach, California

Re: Silence is golden

Post by Wiever »

He also has said he will ask a pertinent question if his colleagues don't but sees no need to engage in the back-and-forth just to hear his own voice.
/Shrug. Seems like that in itself is good enough reason there. I can say for myself, I hate it when people ask questions that add nothing to the topic, or are asked in a matter to show the person's vast knowledge of topic at hand (example- Isn't it true that....?). I rarely will voice a question in a lecture unless it is clear that nobody will ask it.
Post Reply