Tweet
At least in legal circles, people often joke about the fact that Clarence Thomas doesn't ask many questions during oral argument sessions. I heard a staggering statistic this morning, though -- evidently, Thomas had a two year stretch where he did not ask a single question. That is mind-blowing. Apparently, most of the other justices ask more questions over the course of a couple of weeks than Thomas has asked -- and probably will ask -- during his entire tenure on the bench.
I just cannot wrap my head around that. The issues that are before the USSC are exceedingly complex and nuanced. It is simply not possible that he could not need to have any questions answered over a two year period. I don't think it is a partisan thing, either, because not everything that comes before the court has a conservative-liberal slant to it, so it's not like he could make his mind up on ideological grounds and not need to ask any questions for that reason.
I don't know if it's a lack of confidence (not wanting to have the only question you ask over two years be a dumb question) or lack of intellectual curiosity, but it's troubling either way. I disagree with Antonin Scalia on pretty much everything, but there's no way you can dispute the guy's chops as a legal scholar, or that he is a thoughtful and independent jurist; I know that he's going to really think through the issues and come up with a reasoned decision. This news about Thomas bums me out, though, because it suggests to me that there's a guy on the bench that just really isn't contributing a hell of a lot.
Staggering.
I just cannot wrap my head around that. The issues that are before the USSC are exceedingly complex and nuanced. It is simply not possible that he could not need to have any questions answered over a two year period. I don't think it is a partisan thing, either, because not everything that comes before the court has a conservative-liberal slant to it, so it's not like he could make his mind up on ideological grounds and not need to ask any questions for that reason.
I don't know if it's a lack of confidence (not wanting to have the only question you ask over two years be a dumb question) or lack of intellectual curiosity, but it's troubling either way. I disagree with Antonin Scalia on pretty much everything, but there's no way you can dispute the guy's chops as a legal scholar, or that he is a thoughtful and independent jurist; I know that he's going to really think through the issues and come up with a reasoned decision. This news about Thomas bums me out, though, because it suggests to me that there's a guy on the bench that just really isn't contributing a hell of a lot.
Staggering.
