7 ms·
Apparently 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 pontificat
by saalweachter 5y ago
Apparently 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