11 ms·
Is it just me or is it weird that a Supreme Court justice didn't speak at all in court for 7 years?
by jonny_eh 5y ago
Is it just me or is it weird that a Supreme Court justice didn't speak at all in court for 7 years?
- sydthrowaway 5y ago
- saalweachter 5y agoApparently that changed during the Zoom era. He has said that the questioning by the Court is too chaotic, with justices talking over each other and pontificating more than questioning, and didn't feel he gained anything for the loss of dignity. The online format had more formal process of one person then another speaking, and he has apparently taken advantage of it.
- moscovium 5y ago"... with justices talking over each other and pontificating more than questioning..." lmao all workplaces are the same
- jgwil2 5y agoI imagine it could be significantly worse than what most people experience when you throw lifetime appointments into the mix.
- jedberg 5y agoAnd published transcripts of every interaction that is analyzed by law students all over the country, possibly for centuries after your death.
- lettergram 5y agoLifetime *political* appointments lol
- roamerz 5y agoYup. There should be no politics in any court. Only law.
- kbutler 5y agoAnd the law is written by...
- mywittyname 5y agoPeople who say, "eeh, we'll let the judges figure this part out."
- GauntletWizard 5y agoIf there is one thing that the Founding Fathers got wrong, it is this: Supreme Court appointments should not be lifetime. Immune to politics, sure - Once they're in, they cannot be removed for term, maybe, but I believe that they should be fixed-term, not forever What I would propose is thus: Each president should be allowed one appointment, 40 year fixed terms. Same confirmation rules, but rather than the vagaries of when justices step down or die, we have a floating pool of 7-10 justices at any time with new ones being added at a fixed rate.
- halostatue 5y agoCanadian justices must retire at 75.
- lupire 5y ago40years is exactly the problem. 12-20 is reasonable.
- ethbr0 5y agoAnother comment has a citation for embarrassment over a previous regional dialect, but I'd also heard the "Not justices' place to question attorneys presenting their case" version. Which has some merit. Show me someone who can listen as closely while they're also thinking of their next question, and I'll show you a liar.
- ProjectArcturis 5y agoI strongly disagree. If you're a judge listening closely to a lawyer present their case, your head should be filling with questions for their arguments.
- s1artibartfast 5y agoThe Lawyers don't really present their case in oral arguments. The whole process is 1 hour, and each party involved is given 2 minutes to summarize their position.
- dvt 5y agoThis comment betrays that you don't really understand how the legal process works. There's often hundreds and hundreds of pages of briefs that go along with every case, and the oral argument is usually not even that relevant; it's mostly a formality in many cases. It's what gets the headlines, but the "meat" of the case is hardly the oral argument.
- kingcharles 5y agoAgreed. I would waive oral arguments at practically every opportunity, except that I feel like the judges usually ignore all the written motions and decide based on who is wearing the nicest bow tie during oral arguments.
- saghm 5y agoIsn't that just how the Supreme Court works though (and I think appeals courts in general)? I thought it was literally just judges/justices questioning lawyers, not witnesses or the defendant on the stand or something. Maybe I'm just inferring that from how I've seen appeals courts portrayed on TV shows though; I guess I haven't really ever actually been in person to any appeal.
- henryfjordan 5y agoHe might've gotten more chatty during the Zoom era but Thomas went from no talking to some talking after Scalia died. They voted together most of the time, and Scalia sure did enough talking for the both of them. See: https://www.cnn.com/2016/02/29/politics/supreme-court-clarence-thomas-10-year-streak-question/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2016/02/29/politics/supreme-court-claren... https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/06/24/upshot/24up-scotus-agreement-rates.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/06/24/upshot/24up-s...
- todd8 5y agoThere's an interesting graphic that shows how often the Justices vote the same or different, see [1]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/06/24/upshot/24up-scotus-agreement-rates.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/06/24/upshot/24up-s...
- peeters 5y agoIt's pretty interesting that the most "polarized" judges still only disagreed 34% of the time.
- dvt 5y agoInterpreting law is, generally speaking, a pretty objective task and SCOTUS isn't as politically partisan as the media often portrays it. Justices are consummate professionals, friends, and co-workers, not partisan hacks. Ginsburg and Scalia were famously extremely good friends.
- SilasX 5y agoThanks for posting his reasoning, but it doesn't convince me -- there is only a very small window of real-time interaction on the cases and they should be making the most of it. If they're not going to ask questions they might as well just rule based on the briefs and not hold oral arguments at all. Earlier exchange on this point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17181542 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17181542
- woodruffw 5y agoSCOTUS has had relatively quiet justices (both historically and recently), but Thomas stands out even among them for his paucity of words[1]. [1]: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/02/29/468576931/clarence-thomas-asks-1st-question-from-supreme-court-bench-in-10-years https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/02/29/468576931...
- duxup 5y agoIt's weird. But also IMO not "totally" weird. I've sat in a meeting and had everyone ask my questions anyway, better to let them do it. Sometimes I learn more that way. Not everyone operates in a 'let's hash this out verbally' manner, perhaps they do even less so in a crowd of folks already doing that. Granted I often find Thomas's opinions kinda absurd... so I'm talking more generally about "not talking" and less so about Thomas. I just wouldn't hold 'not talking' against anyone. Different people operate differently.
- throwawayboise 5y agoYes, in most meetings I try to say as little as possible, especially when the conversation has diverged from the agenda (i.e. almost every meeting).
- giantg2 5y agoAt my company, that will get you a bad rating (I know from experience).
- throwawayboise 5y agoSounds like a company that overvalues debate for its own sake. I've worked in places like that. "Intellectual sparring" was considered important, even if you basically agreed with the discussion or it was uncontroversial, you were expected to find something to contest in almost every meeting. It was tedious but you could game it by having some stock objections ready to throw out. I moved on from there after a couple of years. I'm not saying never say anything if something important and relevant is being missed, but in my experience that rarely happens.
- dylan604 5y agoUntil you get a performance review where they say that you should be more engaged in meetings. AKA a signal it might be time to update the resume.
- 5y ago
- Kon-Peki 5y agoHe talked a lot, just not into the microphone. It's hard to get into the Supreme Court to watch oral arguments live because of the mismatch in supply and demand. But if you can, please do. It is really interesting to watch.
- dharmab 5y agoNot particularly. Some justices prefer to listen publicly and discuss the case privately with the other justices and in public writing.
- BitwiseFool 5y agoI think it just depends on your feelings about Clarence Thomas. Cogent arguments can be made about his quietness being either a positive or negative thing.
- frankfrankfrank 5y agoThere is no doubt about the quality of his legal mind if you’ve ever heard him speak publicly. I have found that at higher levels of any organization or situation, the smartest and generally best people speak the least; because they’re listening and have no compulsion to impress. Generally, I have also found that letting other people speak is quite useful for a number of reasons, especially in an adversarial situation.
- s1artibartfast 5y agoNot really, when you consider that the oral argument is largely a ceremonial performance. All of the documentation is provided in advance and scrutinized by the nine justices and their 36 clerks. The judges themselves discuss the merits in far greater depth than the short oral Q&A for the record. That said, love the oral arguments and have probably listed to and read more than a hundred. They are usually pretty easy to fallow and far more balanced and informative the media summaries
- elliekelly 5y agoI've always wondered how the "vote" compares before vs after the oral argument and how often (if ever) a justice is persuaded by the answers given in response to questions.
- skinnymuch 5y agoWhich could point to the Supreme Court being a relic of its time and so partisan and ideologically driven that the entire court is closer to a ceremonial performance than a specific aspect like orals.
- rayiner 5y agoOr, in the alternative, it would point to the Supreme Court receiving tens of thousands of words of briefing on the issues prior to argument, supplemented by internal bench memos from their law clerks (some of the brightest young lawyers in the country).
- s1artibartfast 5y agoI would say that the oral argument has zero impact whatsoever.
- rayiner 5y agoI have heard from various seasoned Supreme Court practitioners and former clerks that you can typically only lose ground in oral arguments, not gain it. I.e. Oral argument that can be carefully crafted and gussied up in the briefing can fall apart under scrutiny at argument. But you'll rarely if ever be able to persuade the Court at oral argument about a point that wasn't persuasive in dozens of pages of briefing. My favorite example of this is in Citizens United, where the Government's attorney, in response to a question from Justice Alito, conceded that the Government's interpretation of the First Amendment would allow it to ban political books close to an election. See pp. 26-27: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2008/08-205.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcr...
- snapetom 5y agoHe has said in at least one interview that he believes the legal arguments and principles should stand on their own merit, and purposefully tries not to be influenced by counsel's oratory skills. Hence, the rarely speaks or questions counsel.
- pg_bot 5y agoHe's given a couple of reasons for this. The first is that he doesn't view it as particularly helpful. “I think it’s unnecessary in deciding cases to ask that many questions, and I don’t think it’s helpful, I think we should listen to lawyers who are arguing their cases, and I think we should allow the advocates to advocate.” Most of the general public view oral arguments as the totality of the work that the justices do, but in reality a lot of the work goes on behind the scenes. Reading up on prior decisions, parsing the grammar of a law, reviewing history at the time the law was created, debating behind the scenes, etc. So I could see why asking questions during oral arguments isn't particularly important to him. The other justices do plenty of questioning anyway, so it often becomes redundant. The second reason he has stated is that he is self conscious about the way he talks because he grew up speaking Geechee (aka Gullah) in rural Georgia. Since he was teased about this dialect, he formed a habit of not speaking.
- gotaquestion 5y agoWhat would court case be like if none of the Justices ever spoke? Would it just be two sides giving their arguments, witness, and closing arguments? Seems like that would speed things along. But when is communication every 100% concise? Still seems suspicious to me.
- orzig 5y agoWhat would the beach be like if everyone went today? It's not unreasonable to use the actual context when deciding
- gotaquestion 5y agoClearly every human can't be on the beach at once. But all of the Justices can remain silent. What point are you trying to make? Maybe offer a context?
- Uehreka 5y agoWould it even speed things along? The oral argument part of SCOTUS cases takes way less time than the months of deliberation before they reach a verdict. And for the attorneys involved (many of whom are arguing the biggest and most important case of their lives, sometimes with the future of a huge issue hanging in the balance) I imagine they care a great deal about being able to clear up any questions or confusions the justices may have, even at the expense of a few more days (or even weeks) in court.
- treeman79 5y agoHe was treated extremely badly during his nomination because of his views. Black history museum wouldn’t even mention him. https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/353035-justice-delayed-black-history-museum-finally-recognizes-justice-clarence/amp/ https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/353035-justice-delayed...
- frankfrankfrank 5y agoClarence Thomas is one of those points of access that can open one’s eyes to the reality beyond the matrix, because like you imply, he is a rather large glitch in the system that highlights the insincerity, deliberate dishonesty, and facade that hides the evil of the people that loathe him. A black man may only hold views his masters approved. We are all only as free as those who lord over us permit us, and therefore not free at all. See tech/social media speech and thought control for reference and examples.
- xxpor 5y agoYeah, he's been real oppressed. He gets to impose his "non-approved" views on over 300 million people with no accountability. Give me a break.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- rayiner 5y agoWhat drives me nuts about people's criticism of Thomas is that they don't understand what actually makes him different from other Black people. It's not his religiosity or his conservatism. His "don't complain," "don't protest," "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" conservatism is completely normal for people "who look like him." Even his views on racial issues are widely held by other Black people. For example, the majority believe that race shouldn't be even a "minor factor" in college admissions. And only half of Black people think the government "should help improve the social and economic conditions of black people." https://press.princeton.edu/ideas/the-roots-of-black-political-unity https://press.princeton.edu/ideas/the-roots-of-black-politic... (Figure 0.5). What makes Thomas atypical is his partisan choices. Most Black conservatives believe that it's better to caucus with the white social liberals in the Democratic Party (who are often quite hostile to their values) than with the white conservatives in the Republican Party (who are often willing to tolerate anti-Black racism). These is a deeply personal choice between two parties--neither of which well represents the spectrum of interests of Black people--borne of Thomas's singular lived experience.
- Splendor 5y agoThere's no need. He knows how he's going to vote before any arguments are given.
- rayiner 5y agoIt makes sense considering his personality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CPs7f7kYHA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CPs7f7kYHA. Observe his body language in the first few minutes--the way he sits, where he puts his hands. He's a classic bookish introvert. He opens up as the interview continues, feeding off the interviewer who is a former law clerk and personal friend. But you can see why he might be reluctant to jump into the fray of oral arguments, where people are rushing to get a word in edgewise. (As an aside, I recommend anyone to watch the entire video. It gives a great deal of insight into his personality and thought process.)
- kingkawn 5y agoDid you consider that he is an idiot?
- outside1234 5y ago
- asmithmd1 5y agoNot speaking does not mean he isn't thinking. I was impressed how thoroughly he understood the issues in the Google v. Oracle Java case. He even included some sample pseudo-code in his dissent - although the code kind of sucks (footnote on page 46) https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/18-956_d18f.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/18-956_d18f.pdf