SC Judge Clarence Thomas breaks seven years of silence

[Syt]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clarence-thomas-breaks-long-silence-during-supreme-court-oral-arguments/2013/01/14/a7c6023c-5e7a-11e2-9940-6fc488f3fecd_story.html

Clarence Thomas breaks long silence during Supreme Court oral arguments

Justice Clarence Thomas broke his nearly seven-year silence at Supreme Court oral arguments Monday. But no one is sure exactly what he said.

Thomas seemed to be making a light-hearted joke about lawyers trained at his alma mater Yale Law School or its rival, Harvard. But several justices were speaking and laughing at the time, and the court reporter lost Thomas's comments during the cross talk.

His comments came during questions about the qualifications of lawyers who had represented a Louisiana man in a murder case. Justice Antonin Scalia noted that one of the lawyers had attended Harvard and another had gone to Yale.

"Son of a gun," Scalia said.

Thomas was among other justices — all of whom attended either Harvard or Yale — who either laughed or made side comments.

All that appears in an unofficial transcript is Thomas saying "Well — he did not — "

It appeared that Thomas was joking that that might have made the qualifications suspect, because the Louisiana assistant district attorney in the case, Carla S. Sigler, replied:

"I would refute that, Justice Thomas."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, another Yale graduate, then asked Sigler what was enough to make a lawyer constitutionally adequate.

"Is it anybody who's graduated from Harvard and Yale?"

More laughter.

"Or even just passed the bar?" Sotomayor asked.

"Or LSU law," Sigler said, referring to Louisiana State University.

No matter what Thomas said, his streak of not asking a question at oral arguments continues. He last queried a lawyer Feb. 22, 2006.

Thomas has said he thinks the justices spend too much time firing questions at the lawyers who come before them in oral arguments.

"I think it's an opportunity for the advocate, the lawyers, to fill in the blanks, to make their case," Thomas said in a 2009 interview with C-SPAN for a series about life on the court. "I think you should allow people to complete their answers and their thought, and to continue their conversation. I find that coherence that you get from a conversation far more helpful than the rapid-fire questions."

[Razgovory]

Scalia is now a ventriloquist?

[MadImmortalMan]

We need to end the insidious reign of Harvard and Yale. 

[Viking]

[Caliga]

I like it that Thomas doesn't say much.  I wish a lot of our political figures (let's face it, Supreme Court Justices are political figures) followed his lead.

[The Minsky Moment]

I like it that Thomas doesn't say much.  I wish a lot of our political figures (let's face it, Supreme Court Justices are political figures) followed his lead.

Wrong job for that.

[stjaba]

I like it that Thomas doesn't say much.  I wish a lot of our political figures (let's face it, Supreme Court Justices are political figures) followed his lead.

Wrong job for that.

How often do questions at oral argument really change the outcome of Supreme Court cases? My gut "guess" is that the impact of oral arguments on is overblown. See, e.g., Nat'l Fed. of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius.

Further, about 44 percent of Supreme Court cases are unanimous- I doubt that oral arguments really matter in any of those cases.

[MadImmortalMan]

My gut guess is "almost never".

[Ideologue]

Almost never, at any level of appellate decisionmaking.

We need to end the insidious reign of Harvard and Yale.

Along with Stanford, they're about the only law schools that don't need to either close (more than half) or die back (almost all up through the T14 and including Columbia, Grand Central Station for rankings-evading transfers--sorry, Faeelin! Duke sucks too! sign the petition!).

[crazy canuck]

Almost never, at any level of appellate decisionmaking.

I dont know about that.  I have been involved in a few appeals where counsel were able to correct misconceptions regarding the courts understanding of material facts.  Its harder to tell what impact submissions regarding legal issues might have but the Chief Justice of our Supreme Court has often said that oral argument is important to the the Court's decision making process.

[The Minsky Moment]

How often do questions at oral argument really change the outcome of Supreme Court cases? My gut "guess" is that the impact of oral arguments on is overblown.

The justices consistently say they find them helpful.  Are they as important as the papers?  No.  But to the extent that oral arguments have a purpose, that purpose is fulfilled by the justices raising the issues that are most pertinent to their resolution.

[DGuller]

If the guy is just a hack who already knows how he's going to vote, I think everyone is better off if he doesn't bullshit them with pointless questions.

[The Minsky Moment]

If the guy is just a hack who already knows how he's going to vote, I think everyone is better off if he doesn't bullshit them with pointless questions.

I don't think anyone on the Court falls into that category.
The process isn't as simple as a straw poll plaintiff wins, defendant wins.  The reasoning, the scope of the opinion are typically all up for play in some way or another until final drafting.  And votes sometime switch.  The oral argument session is a way for justices that want some clarification on particular points to get that; it is also a way for them to get their brethren to focus on particular points.