Abatis (03-21-2019)
Asking questions means nothing. I have listened to many Supreme Court oral arguments and those justices that interrupt the attorney's case with too many questions and (sometimes silly) hypotheticals only take away some of his time and disrupt his case.
To judge a justice by how many questions he asked is stupid. Try reading his decisions.
Abatis (03-21-2019)
The lawyers are there make their cases and then be judged. Why should the justices do their work ?
"Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything." Joseph Stalin
The USA has lost WWIV to China with no other weapons but China Virus and some cash to buy democrats.
and the first thing he did was spit out a pubic hair
Funny, thought asking questions was a avenue for learning something, well, unless you already have your mind made up and don't want to discover something that might possibly alter the conclusion you had going in. Didn't think that was the role of a SCOTUS Justice
And how many majority or even minority reports has Thomas even offered? If my memory is correct, few, and for the most part they are just as easily identified as the other concurring opinions, he has little to offer, and I got to believe doesn't want to offer anything, he knows why and for what purpose he is there. As I said, didn't think that was the role of a SCOTUS Justice
Asking questions is a way to learn but when the two sides have prepared their cases and are given only thirty minutes each to present it to the court too many questions often take the attorney away from his main argument.
I am not criticizing asking questions, only arguing that not asking questions is not a reason to criticize a justice. It is only part of today's hyper-partisanship that looks for something critical to say about a justice because they give liberal or conservative opinions a person dislikes. It is just a trivial attempt to push hate.
Sometimes the questions completely change the direction a lawyer is arguing. He may be basing his case on one legal argument but when justices seem more interested in pursuing a different line of questioning he changes his argument.
For a good example of a case in which the lawyer is asked an endless line of hypothetical examples is the recent establishment of religion case involving the large cross on public land that the government exchanged with a private organization making the cross on private land. Hypotheticals kept asking about the size of the cross.
Here is a list of Thomas's opinions, concurrences, and dissents. It is more than a few. And I was not defending Thomas as much as saying the number of questions he asked is a silly criteria.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/ju...homas.dec.html
RB 60 (03-21-2019)
Bookmarks