Update/Related (17:38 EDT): The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog started an open thread on Thomas's lack of questions during oral arguments here.
USA Today's "On Deadline" blog this morning picked up on a 5-day old McClatchy Newspapers item that showed Justice Clarence Thomas spoke exactly zero words during Supreme Court oral arguments since February. The original article it referred to seemed to take subtle swipes at the 58-year old George H.W. Bush-appointed jurist.
The May 16 item by reporter Michael Doyle began:
Mum's the word for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Very, very mum.
Taking reticence to new heights, Thomas zips his lip during the robust intellectual combat known as the oral argument. While his eight colleagues joke, thrust, parry and probe, Thomas leans back in silence. And that's how he stays.
Yet rather than leaving Thomas's silence to his quiet demeanor or personality, Doyle went on to suggest to readers that the taciturn Thomas was not intellectually engaged in his work (emphasis mine):
But if Thomas appears checked out, his Supreme Court colleagues are fully dialed in, revealing themselves through the questions they ask. The questions can provoke, penetrate and confuse. They can entertain, enlighten and enlarge the listener.
[...]
Oral arguments are an ongoing constitutional conversation, displaying the acute minds and distinct personalities that shape the law under which Americans live. With judicial deliberations conducted in leak-proof secrecy, the oral arguments are the public's best opportunity to regard how justices serving life terms think and how they behave.
Of course oral arguments are just a fraction of the work of a federal jurist, much less a Supreme Court justice. Countless hours poring over legal precedent, searching legal commentaries, engaging the other justices in debate and discussion, and writing, revising, and publishing written opinions are all key to the Court's work and indeed to "displaying the acute minds and distinct personalities" that interpret the Constitution.
Nowhere in his article does Doyle point readers to how they can access Thomas's written opinions on the Supreme Court Web site.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Remember the 3 monkeys
May 21, 2007 - 10:00 ET by PawpawNSee no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. I thought most intellectuals were always in deep thought. Again, guess everything I've learned is wrong, so I'm now told! Why is joking in a SUPREME COURT hearing looked upon as bright, intelligent, etc.? Am I losing it!
I wonder if anyone considered
May 21, 2007 - 10:07 ET by Tim GrahamI wonder if anyone considered that Thomas, in letting his written opinions speak for him, is betting that liberal pundits, talk radio hosts, and political reporters and columnists don't read Supreme Court opinions very much -- or at least it's harder to mischaracterize them -- while off-the-cuff comments during oral arguments could be wildly misinterpreted -- in tone, inflection, and even court drawings, and not just his actual thoughts -- if he spoke out.
Years ago there were articles
May 21, 2007 - 10:32 ET by iveseenitallYears ago there were articles written about the loss of reticence in our society. The adolescent "look at me" attitude is pervasive today due to rampant liberalism which puts the individual well above the common good. Hello--the Supreme Court is not about the judges and their personalities; it is about law and justice. Ignorant liberals make me sick.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
Maybe he could ask Ruth Bad
May 21, 2007 - 10:23 ET by Jack BauerMaybe he could ask Ruth Bader Ginsberg to recuse herself from any judgment involving organizations and causes for whom she used to be an advocate, such as...
Sleep Depravation
May 21, 2007 - 10:26 ET by PawpawNIsn't she suffering from Sleep Depravation, since she falls asleep while trials going on?
Modern liberals
May 21, 2007 - 10:50 ET by iveseenitallThis is modern liberalism. Get your big mouth going -- to hell with right and wrong, truth etc. Rosie, Moore , Bill M., on and on are prime examples of the thinking that it's not what you say, just how loud and in what mannner you say it. Do it with a smile, add a joke or two, or do it with feigned outrage. Never just sit and think about what you are about to say. Never consider whether what you say is morally wrong or intellectually vacuous, just say it --- your only consideration being the reacton of others. This is part and parcel of the poison which has infested the body politic all over the world. Problem is that it is not long ( relatively speaking) before most people see right through the P.C. Then cynicism reigns supreme. No one trusts anything that is said. No one trusts anyone. Look around; this is what has happened. I sure as hell don't trust a word which comes from a liberal's mouth.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
I wouldn't waste words on som
May 21, 2007 - 10:41 ET by GothampcI wouldn't waste words on some of his colleagues either. If those jokers are going to vote that the government can come in and take personal property (Kelso) what's the point in talking to them? They're idiots and should be given the cold shoulder.
Obviously this reporter is ig
May 21, 2007 - 10:44 ET by mattmObviously this reporter is ignorant of the old addage:
"It's better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it an remove all doubt."
Hahahaha. The dingbat at US
May 21, 2007 - 16:23 ET by TEHahahaha. The dingbat at USA Today actually "thinks" that oral arguments are of some significance. Oral arguments are a joke and a waste of time for appellate courts. The justices/judges should be relying on the record of the trial court and the law for their decisions and should not be influenced by the garbage presented at oral argument. Of course, lawless justices like Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens, Breyer and Kennedy are persuaded by nonsense fed to them at oral argument.
Yeah, most of the stuff at
May 21, 2007 - 16:39 ET by Ken ShepherdYeah, most of the stuff at oral argument, I believe, is already expounded upon in the briefs that petitioners and respondents file. Additional arguments from amici curiae are also helpful to the justices. Oral arguments are probably at many points a rehashing of things the justices have already read a few times before the oyez are bellowed.