[Amun-Ra]

He hasn't spoken a word in oral arguments to the court in almost 5 years. What exactly has he been doing?

[Hoot Gibson]

Listening and writing some excellent decisions.

[TheRealVille]

Listening and writing some excellent decisions.

?

[Hoot Gibson]

?

Thomas has explained that in his opinion, he believes that he owes the two counsels making oral arguments the courtesy of listening to those arguments. He told a Virginia bar association, "If I invite you to argue your case, I should at least listen to you."

Justice Thomas has compared the Supreme Court's oral argument phase to Family Feud and he is also on record as stating that he group up comfortable with his oratory skills because he was teased about his rural Georgia dialect.

Justice Thomas has spoken during oral arguments before and he has delivered many opinions from the bench. The criticism of Thomas for not participating more often in oral arguments is just a continuation of the left's effort to portray him as unintelligent, or to paraphrase Thomas himself, it is a continuation of a high tech lynching.

[srixon2]

He is still thinking about who put that hair in his coke!!

[BillyB]

He wasn't intellectually curious when nominated and he isn't now. He's afraid to debate his view of the law. He'd rather just issue the decision and walk away from it. Not good for the country or the law.

[Hoot Gibson]

He wasn't intellectually curious when nominated and he isn't now. He's afraid to debate his view of the law. He'd rather just issue the decision and walk away from it. Not good for the country or the law.

Thomas is not an advocate, he is a judge. His job is to listen to arguments, consider case law, and make decisions. The notion of judges not being advocates of political positions seems foreign to liberals. Even with Justice Thomas rarely participating in oral arguments, this Court is peppering the attorneys appearing before it with many more questions than it did a few years ago.

[BillyB]

Thomas is not an advocate, he is a judge. His job is to listen to arguments, consider case law, and make decisions. The notion of judge's not being advocates of political positions seems foreign to liberals like yourself.

The problem Thomas presents for angry righties (I left out the "like yourself" silly comment) is that he is not persuasive on the Court. He is definitely a solid right wing vote; but, he does not persuade others to join him. On a less conservative court he would be a big nothing.

[Hoot Gibson]

The problem Thomas presents for angry righties (I left out the "like yourself" silly comment) is that he is not persuasive on the Court. He is definitely a solid right wing vote; but, he does not persuade others to join him. On a less conservative court he would be a big nothing.

Yes, you left out the "like yourself" comment, which I had already edited out, but chose to refer to conservatives as "angry righties." :Clap:

Kind of like all the the angry lefties who blamed Sarah Palin's use of the word "target" for the shooting of an Arizona Congresswoman, who cannot bring themselves to criticize the left's recent comparisons of the Wisconsin governor to Hitler for proposing budget cuts. Overheated rhetoric does not seem so wrong to liberals, like yourself, when it is directed at conservatives, like Clarence Thomas.

[BillyB]

Yes, you left out the "like yourself" comment, which I had already edited out, but chose to refer to conservatives as "angry righties." :Clap:

Kind of like all the the angry lefties who blamed Sarah Palin's use of the word "target" for the shooting of an Arizona Congresswoman, who cannot bring themselves to criticize the left's recent comparisons of the Wisconsin governor to Hitler for proposing budget cuts. Overheated rhetoric does not seem so wrong to liberals, like yourself, when it is directed at conservatives, like Clarence Thomas.

You're right, it was "angry lefties" who blamed Palin for Gifford's shooting. But, those who called on politicians to stop marking political opponents with targets, or to stop referring to exercising Second Amendment rights, or other ill advised remarks, were absolutely correct.

Comparing anyone to Hitler for any reason is just silly. There's been far too much of it in recent years.

However, my comment about Thomas was neither overheated, nor rhetoric. It was my opinion.

(BTW, I would distinguish "angry righties" from conservatives. All "angry righties" are conservatives but not all conservatives are "angry righties.")

[Hoot Gibson]

You're right, it was "angry lefties" who blamed Palin for Gifford's shooting. But, those who called on politicians to stop marking political opponents with targets, or to stop referring to exercising Second Amendment rights, or other ill advised remarks, were absolutely correct.

Comparing anyone to Hitler for any reason is just silly. There's been far too much of it in recent years.

However, my comment about Thomas was neither overheated, nor rhetoric. It was my opinion.

(BTW, I would distinguish "angry righties" from conservatives. All "angry righties" are conservatives but not all conservatives are "angry righties.")

Criticizing me for referring to you as a liberal, even as you referred to conservatives as "angry righties" was a bit over the top. Neither of us know how persuasive Justice Thomas is because we are not privy to the behind the scenes correspondence and lobbying that goes on. From what I understand, both Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia are very well liked and respected by their liberal colleagues. Cases are not won and lost during oral arguments.

[nky]

Where in the Constitution does it say that a justice on the Supreme Court has to ask questions?

The justices have before them reams of papers dealing with the legal points of each case. They decide the case based on the merits not how well someone call speak before them,.

[BillyB]

Where in the Constitution does it say that a justice on the Supreme Court has to ask questions?

The justices have before them reams of papers dealing with the legal points of each case. They decide the case based on the merits not how well someone call speak before them,.

Then why do oral arguments at all?

[Amun-Ra]

Thomas has explained that in his opinion, he believes that he owes the two counsels making oral arguments the courtesy of listening to those arguments. He told a Virginia bar association, "If I invite you to argue your case, I should at least listen to you."

Justice Thomas has compared the Supreme Court's oral argument phase to Family Feud and he is also on record as stating that he group up comfortable with his oratory skills because he was teased about his rural Georgia dialect.

Justice Thomas has spoken during oral arguments before and he has delivered many opinions from the bench. The criticism of Thomas for not participating more often in oral arguments is just a continuation of the left's effort to portray him as unintelligent, or to paraphrase Thomas himself, it is a continuation of a high tech lynching.

I never said he was unintelligent. And he is a Supreme Court Justice, no one is going to tease him for his dialect.
I was just simpley saying that Thomas, one of the highest judges in the land, should express his opinions He should speak in arguments. He should show us his interpertations on the Law. Thats his role. Thats why he was appointed to the bench. Not to set there.

[Hoot Gibson]

I never said he was unintelligent. And he is a Supreme Court Justice, no one is going to tease him for his dialect.
I was just simpley saying that Thomas, one of the highest judges in the land, should express his opinions He should speak in arguments. He should show us his interpertations on the Law. Thats his role. Thats why he was appointed to the bench. Not to set there.

His role is to weigh evidence and make rulings. If you want to know how he interprets the law, then you need to read the decisions that he has written. Supreme Court justices are not supposed to politicians, and that is exactly what they sound like when they take the focus off of the litigants to show off their own debating skills.

[nky]

Then why do oral arguments at all?

To permit each side to verbally state their case. The Justices already have before them all the written and legal points of the case. Oral Arguments are one last time to tell why your right and the other side is wrong. For the justices the real "debate" takes place in their chambers and when they meet together behind closed doors.

[nky]

FYI from the Sumpreme Court's website:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Default.aspx

A case selected for argument usually involves interpretations of the U. S. Constitution or federal law. At least four Justices have selected the case as being of such importance that the Supreme Court must resolve the legal issues.

An attorney for each side of a case will have an opportunity to make a presentation to the Court and answer questions posed by the Justices. Prior to the argument each side has submitted a legal brief—a written legal argument outlining each party’s points of law. The Justices have read these briefs prior to argument and are thoroughly familiar with the case, its facts, and the legal positions that each party is advocating.
Beginning the first Monday in October, the Court generally hears two one-hour arguments a day, at 10 a.m. and 11 a.m., with occasional afternoon sessions scheduled as necessary. Arguments are held on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays in two-week intervals through late April (with longer breaks during December and February). The argument calendars are posted on the Court’s Website under the "Oral Arguments" link. In the recesses between argument sessions, the Justices are busy writing opinions, deciding which cases to hear in the future, and reading the briefs for the next argument session. They grant review in approximately 100 of the more than 10,000 petitions filed with the Court each term. No one knows exactly when a decision will be handed down by the Court in an argued case, nor is there a set time period in which the Justices must reach a decision. However, all cases argued during a term of Court are decided before the summer recess begins, usually by the end of June.

During an argument week, the Justices meet in a private conference, closed even to staff, to discuss the cases and to take a preliminary vote on each case. If the Chief Justice is in the majority on a case decision, he decides who will write the opinion. He may decide to write it himself or he may assign that duty to any other Justice in the majority. If the Chief Justice is in the minority, the Justice in the majority who has the most seniority assumes the assignment duty.

[TheGuyYouLoveToHate]

I heard he ate too many peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.

[Beetle01]

I agree with him on some things, however, he ruled against the guy wanting to use the cart in the PGA because of his leg. Because of this I will never like him. You have to be cold hearted to rule against that guy.

[TheRealVille]

I agree with him on some things, however, he ruled against the guy wanting to use the cart in the PGA because of his leg. Because of this I will never like him. You have to be cold hearted to rule against that guy.

:Thumbs: