Justice Thomas asks a question from the bench!

[The Tradition]

Justice Clarence Thomas asked a question from the bench during oral arguments on Monday, the first time in 10 years he has done so.

Thomas reportedly asked a number of questions during Monday's argument, shocking observers used to the conservative's public silence.

The questions were also notable in coming after the death of fellow conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, who was well known for interrogating lawyers at oral arguments.

On Twitter, Kimberly Robinson, a reporter with Bloomberg BNA tweeted that she lost count after seven questions from Thomas.

“None of the other justices seemed surprised,” she tweeted.

The case before the court on Monday is known as Stephen Voisine v. the United States. It centers on the convictions of two men who had been charged with domestic violence.

The court is being asked to decide whether a prior conviction of “reckless” domestic assault qualifies as a federal misdemeanor domestic violence, a charge that bars the men from possessing a firearm.

Thomas is one of the court's four remaining conservative members.

http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/271140-justice-thomas-breaks-silence-on-supreme-court


Suddenly talkative Thomas. Interesting....

 

[YellowSnow51]

Interesting. I wonder if he's doing it as a homage to Scalia or doing it to make up for his absence or something completely different.

 

[IACub]

His first question was to ask for a can of Coke.

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

It's the end of the world as we know it ....

 

[The Tradition]

Maybe all these years Scalia was simply asking all the questions before Thomas got a chance to ask them?

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Maybe all these years Scalia was simply asking all the questions before Thomas got a chance to ask them?

Something like that. . . or that Thomas was just letting Scalia ask all the questions because he knew Scalia would ask any questions that Thomas had.

 

[Funky Bunch]

 

[lucas80]

Clarence Thomas is an example of why America does not need racial quotas. There were far better choices for the Supreme Court who hadn't harassed female co-workers than Thomas.

 

[Huey Grey]

How do you go 10 years without asking a single question? Is it even possible to do your job doing that?

 

[lucas80]

How do you go 10 years without asking a single question? Is it even possible to do your job doing that?

Ask one of the regulars on here that rants against incompetent government workers.

 

[Huey Grey]

Ask one of the regulars on here that rants against incompetent government workers.

Thomas said that he just liked to sit back and let other people do the talking. But is this really good enough? It's hard to believe that every last question was asked by another justice in 10 years. It's hard to believe that he couldn't come up with a single question on his own.

 

[IACub]

Now he's just showing off.

 

[hawklandish]

Thomas said that he just liked to sit back and let other people do the talking. But is this really good enough? It's hard to believe that every last question was asked by another justice in 10 years. It's hard to believe that he couldn't come up with a single question on his own.

You are grasping at straws here. Many appellate justices never ask questions. Some very few. Some cases are decided without oral argument. The cases have been fully briefed and researched by the time they get to this point. You are simply trying to take a shot at Thomas in an area about which you know nothing.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

You are grasping at straws here. Many appellate justices never ask questions. Some very few. Some cases are decided without oral argument. The cases have been fully briefed and researched by the time they get to this point. You are simply trying to take a shot at Thomas in an area about which you know nothing.

Yeah...all the other justices in the history of the US have been doing it wrong. Good thing we finally got one who knows how to do the job.

 

[Huey Grey]

You are grasping at straws here. Many appellate justices never ask questions. Some very few. Some cases are decided without oral argument. The cases have been fully briefed and researched by the time they get to this point. You are simply trying to take a shot at Thomas in an area about which you know nothing.

You understand that our Supreme Court is totally based on oral arguments, right? If the rest of the justices adopted Thomas' style, we literally wouldn't even have a Court, because nobody would be talking.

 

[hawklandish]

You understand that our Supreme Court is totally based on oral arguments, right? If the rest of the justices adopted Thomas' style, we literally wouldn't even have a Court, because nobody would be talking.

That may be one of the most ill-informed posts of all time. It is 100% wrong. In case you are wondering, I am admitted to practice before the US Supreme Court, and know of what I speak. The majority of cases before the Supreme Court do not even get oral argument.

 

[hawklandish]

Yeah...all the other justices in the history of the US have been doing it wrong. Good thing we finally got one who knows how to do the job.

Your premise is demonstrably wrong. Not all other justices in history ask questions, and some ask very few. This is also true of the lower courts of appeals and state appellate courts.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Your premise is demonstrably wrong. Not all other justices in history ask questions, and some ask very few. This is also true of the lower courts of appeals and state appellate courts.

Damn...here I was agreeing with you. No justices should ask questions. Ever. What's the point?

BTW, my brother is "admitted to practice before the US Supreme Court". It's really not that big a deal. Ever argued a case there?

 

[Huey Grey]

That may be one of the most ill-informed posts of all time. It is 100% wrong. In case you are wondering, I am admitted to practice before the US Supreme Court, and know of what I speak. The majority of cases before the Supreme Court do not even get oral argument.

I call bullshit on your little lie that you practice before the Court, because each side is allowed 30 minutes to argue their case.

"Thereafter, if the Court chooses to hold a hearing, each side has thirty minutes to present its case orally."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedures_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

 

[tarheelbybirth]

I call bullshit on your little lie that you practice before the Court, because each side is allowed 30 minutes to argue their case.

"Thereafter, if the Court chooses to hold a hearing, each side has thirty minutes to present its case orally."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedures_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

He doesn't practice before the court...he belongs to the club that's admitted to the bar. He, theoretically, COULD argue a case. But there are many, many lawyers who can make the same claim. Thousands join every year - it's an ego boost.

 

[Huey Grey]

He doesn't practice before the court...he belongs to the club that's admitted to the bar. He, theoretically, COULD argue a case. But here are many many lawyers who can make the same claim. Thousands join every year.

Well it's obvious he's never attended a hearing because it's a rule that each side is given 30 minutes to talk.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Well it's obvious he's never attended a hearing because it's a rule that each side is given 30 minutes to talk.

But that's only if they decide to hold a hearing. and by then their minds are almost always made up. Oral arguments very rarely impact a decision.

 

[lucas80]

I call bullshit on your little lie that you practice before the Court, because each side is allowed 30 minutes to argue their case.

"Thereafter, if the Court chooses to hold a hearing, each side has thirty minutes to present its case orally."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedures_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

Whoa! Maybe he doesn't post here much because he's always arguing important cases before the Supreme Court?

 

[pablow]

But that's only if they decide to hold a hearing. and by then their minds are almost always made up. Oral arguments very rarely impact a decision.

If the Supreme Court accepts a case for review (i.e. grants a writ of certiorari) oral arguements are scheduled. The Court usual hears a little over 100 cases a year but will grant cert. and summarily remand many cases in one page orders. The latter group are not heard orally.

Oral argument is important because, contrary to the cynical view, the justices haven't decided the case before agrument. Plus, the dynamics of oral agrument are that the judges are asking the lawyers questions but at they same time they're actually arguing with each other through the questioning process.

I have practiced and argued before the Supreme Court. The justices ask a lot of questions and everyone knew Thomas usually didn't join the fun. I didn't think it was a big deal because he seemed very engaged nevertheless.

 

[Titanhawk2]

Does seem odd but in the end the SCOTUS is not a place to introduce anything new but interpreting whether what has occurred up to that point was done correctly

 

[hawklandish]

Damn...here I was agreeing with you. No justices should ask questions. Ever. What's the point?

BTW, my brother is "admitted to practice before the US Supreme Court". It's really not that big a deal. Ever argued a case there?

I have had three cases to up for cert. but all were decided without oral argument. You are mostly correct, many who are admitted to practice before the Supreme Court never have a case there. On the other hand, almost everyone who gets admitted does so because they are trying to get a case up on cert., etc.

 

[hawklandish]

I call bullshit on your little lie that you practice before the Court, because each side is allowed 30 minutes to argue their case.

"Thereafter, if the Court chooses to hold a hearing, each side has thirty minutes to present its case orally."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedures_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

Only if the court "chooses to hold a hearing". In many cases, the court decides without hearing.

 

[hawklandish]

Well it's obvious he's never attended a hearing because it's a rule that each side is given 30 minutes to talk.

The time can vary. Parties can request more time, and sometimes it is granted.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

If the Supreme Court accepts a case for review (i.e. grants a writ of certiorari) oral arguements are scheduled. The Court usual hears a little over 100 cases a year but will grant cert. and summarily remand many cases in one page orders. The latter group are not heard orally.

Oral argument is important because, contrary to the cynical view, the justices haven't decided the case before agrument. Plus, the dynamics of oral agrument are that the judges are asking the lawyers questions but at they same time they're actually arguing with each other through the questioning process.

I have practiced and argued before the Supreme Court. The justices ask a lot of questions and everyone knew Thomas usually didn't join the fun. I didn't think it was a big deal because he seemed very engaged nevertheless.

I would be a little disappointed to learn that, after studying the briefs - or the summaries of the briefs that their clerks prepare - and the law, a 30 minute performance piece could change a judge's mind. Scalia said it was very rare for him to be swayed by oral arguments...but that's Scalia. What we do know is that it is possible to predict how the justices will rule on high profile cases - that would indicate an ideological lean not easily swayed.

I'm not dismissing them - I have no doubt that the reasoning presented in oral arguments finds it's way into the published opinions of the judges. I just seriously doubt they often change a mind.

 

[The Tradition]

Allowing for the lawyers to make oral arguments doesn't imply that the justices have to argue back. It's absolutely ridiculous the way discussions ebb and flow around here.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Maybe all these years Scalia was simply asking all the questions before Thomas got a chance to ask them?

Thomas was the the puppet-master, Scalia the puppet.

Who knew?

 

[tarheelbybirth]

I have had three cases to up for cert. but all were decided without oral argument. You are mostly correct, many who are admitted to practice before the Supreme Court never have a case there. On the other hand, almost everyone who gets admitted does so because they are trying to get a case up on cert., etc.

I checked. Four thousand lawyers are "admitted to practice before the US Supreme Court" every year on average. I doubt even a tiny fraction of them have ANY plans to appear there. I know my brother did it on a lark...it gave him something to hang on his wall.

Requirements:

1. be a member of a state's bar for three years

2. get the signatures of two other Supreme Court bar members

3. fill out a 2-page form

4. pay a one-time $200 fee.

Not exactly an exclusive club

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

The time can vary. Parties can request more time, and sometimes it is granted.

Rarely. I had one case go up and was argued. Client on my recommendation hired a Supreme Court pro. I have argued in 4 of the 11 circuit courts of appeal, but if it's the Supreme Court, I am hiring a pro - Waxman, Carter Phillips, etc, unless very special circumstances are present.

 

[Hawk and Awe]

I find it increddibly impressive that he resisted the urge to speak for 10 years. Most of my days would be so much more pleasant if my co-workers had that sort of self restraint.

 

[HotelAlphaWilcoKilo]

Allowing for the lawyers to make oral arguments doesn't imply that the justices have to argue back. It's absolutely ridiculous the way discussions ebb and flow around here.

No shit. I wish more people would just read the FACTS you post and accept them as facts. Not even a need for discussion when you come with facts 24/7/366.

All ebb. No flow.

 

[hawklandish]

I would be a little disappointed to learn that, after studying the briefs - or the summaries of the briefs that their clerks prepare - and the law, a 30 minute performance piece could change a judge's mind. Scalia said it was very rare for him to be swayed by oral arguments...but that's Scalia. What we do know is that it is possible to predict how the justices will rule on high profile cases - that would indicate an ideological lean not easily swayed.

I'm not dismissing them - I have no doubt that the reasoning presented in oral arguments finds it's way into the published opinions of the judges. I just seriously doubt they often change a mind.

Agreed.