Clarence Thomas: Let’s face it, Q&A during oral arguments isn’t helpful

posted at 8:46 pm on April 6, 2012 by Allahpundit

I don’t agree, but I’d never fault a judge for being eager to listen.

“I don’t see where that advances anything,” he said of the questions. “Maybe it’s the Southerner in me. Maybe it’s the introvert in me, I don’t know. I think that when somebody’s talking, somebody ought to listen.”…

He said the lawyers presenting their cases are capable and don’t need guidance from the justices: “I don’t need to hold your hand, help you cross the street to argue a case. I don’t need to badger you.”…

“We have a lifetime to go back in chambers and to argue with each other,” he said. “They have 30, 40 minutes per side for cases that are important to them and to the country. They should argue. That’s a part of the process.

“I don’t like to badger people. These are not children. The court traditionally did not do that. I have been there 20 years. I see no need for all of that. Most of that is in the briefs, and there are a few questions around the edges.”

He hasn’t asked a question from the bench since 2006. Here’s my problem: Wouldn’t oral arguments be nothing more than a regurgitation of the briefs if the Court didn’t ask questions? He’s right about some of the justices using Q&A to help the lawyers “cross the street” — go look at how the liberals bailed out Verrilli early on last week when he was struggling — and the pace of the questioning is frequently ridiculous. According to an NYT piece published last year, from 1988-2008, the Court averaged 133 questions per one-hour argument. No doubt part of the badgering is simply the Supremes having fun toying with the lawyers, but I’ve got to believe Q&A is a more productive use of their time than sitting there while people read from prepared remarks that the justices themselves could read in one-fifth the time. Turning oral arguments into a speech-making spectacle would reduce the process to something almost ceremonial, where the Court shows up and gives the parties a thrill by letting their lawyers have an hour in front of SCOTUS to blather. Although, as I think about it, maybe oral arguments are already largely ceremonial. With all the briefs they have to sift through and all the backdoor politicking that goes on during deliberations, it’s hard to believe that anything said during Q&A ever amounts to a gamechanger. I think arguments are chiefly a way for the Court to face the public rather than for the lawyers to face the Court. After all, if everything was done on paper, with the justices issuing momentous opinions without ever showing their faces publicly, it’d make their job as a check on democratic majorities even harder.

Speaking of bad ideas about the Supreme Court, here’s one that TNR is kicking around:

I’ve never liked the idea of term limits for members of Congress, because if a member outstays his or her welcome voters get the chance every two or six years to hire a replacement. But term limits for judges—not just Supreme Court justices—make a certain amount of sense when those judges are appointed. For all their clairvoyance, the Founders couldn’t possibly have anticipated the impact that longer life spans would have on lifetime judicial appointments…

Another problem is that longevity has made the Supreme Court confirmation process extremely partisan and contentious—the stakes are just too absurdly high. The era of bitter Supreme Court confirmation fights—some say the era of bitter partisan politics in general—began in 1987, when Democrats defeated Reagan’s nomination of Robert Bork. That was a quarter-century ago, and if Sen. Ted Kennedy, D.-Mass., hadn’t played it pretty rough (“Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution,” etc.) then Bork, who turned 85 last month, would probably still be sitting on the Court.

Arguably the reason Bork never sat on the Court at all is precisely because the Senate knew he was looking at a lifetime appointment if confirmed. You might roll the dice on someone whom you know is limited to 15 years; if you’re worried that he might have, say, 35, the calculus is different. But never mind that. Imagine how much more of an unholy clusterfark presidential elections would be if we knew for a fact that a certain number of vacancies would open up on the Court in the next term. Imagine further that the judges whose terms were ending were part of the Court’s majority and that the election would therefore determine SCOTUS’s balance of the power going forward. Court appointments would become an enormous factor in the campaign, as much a proxy vote for two Supreme shortlists than for two visions of the presidency. And needless to say, any justice appointed by the winner would face tremendous political pressure to vote as expected. They already do, of course, but the uncertainty of vacancies opening up means no president is elected with any guarantee that he’ll get to remake the Court. Term limits would change that. If an appointee ended up voting differently than expected, it’d be a betrayal of a specific campaign promise on which millions of votes may have turned. If you think the Court’s politicized now, go ahead and give it an even bigger role in elections by tossing term limits in there. The countermajoritarian difficulty will be more difficult than ever.

Exit fun fact from Rasmussen: Just 15 percent of likely voters think the Court puts too many limits on the federal government compared to 30 percent who think it doesn’t put enough.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

“Uncle Tom” — KeninCT

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2012 at 8:48 PM

“Racist activist judge” — liberal4life

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2012 at 8:49 PM

“Stupid” — 0…syndrom

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2012 at 8:49 PM

+ 7%

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2012 at 8:50 PM

Bishop

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2012 at 8:50 PM

“War on Judges” – L4L

Electrongod on April 6, 2012 at 8:50 PM

Bmore

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2012 at 8:51 PM

Keep going, Schad!

4Grace on April 6, 2012 at 8:51 PM

I love this man, his philosophy mirrors mine at times, “less said, is best said”, thank you Justice Thomas for not letting the “haters” get you.

waterytart on April 6, 2012 at 8:52 PM

There’s a name for guys like him in the African-American community.

/libtard4life

CurtZHP on April 6, 2012 at 8:52 PM

“The Affordable Care Act is constitutional but DOMA must go” — Obama

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2012 at 8:52 PM

4Grace is cool :)

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2012 at 8:52 PM

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2012 at 8:52 PM

Right back at ya :)

4Grace on April 6, 2012 at 8:54 PM

PANDERING — liberal4life

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2012 at 8:54 PM

Diversity! Diversity! Diversity!

4Grace on April 6, 2012 at 8:55 PM

I think the Court pretty much has to have oral arguments and questioning to maintain good will – otherwise they look far too much like a government institution is allowed to do everything behind closed doors. They’re one of the least democratic parts of the Constitution, chosen only indirectly by the people at two removes (through the President and Senate). This is how it’s made palatable.

Waggoner on April 6, 2012 at 8:55 PM

“We must end this misogyny” — liberal4life

“…wait, wrong thread, but I’m still a parrot” — liberal4life

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2012 at 8:56 PM

With three women on the SCOTUS, aren’t the cries of impeach the Supremes from the lefties attacks on women, too ?

Just wondered.

DevilsPrinciple on April 6, 2012 at 8:56 PM

GOP activist court now making laws.

Liberal4Life

JPeterman on April 6, 2012 at 8:56 PM

You have to have term limits for the likes of Pelosi and Reid. All the idiots congregate in one area, and with ‘seniority’ the end result is that all the rest of the country suffers.

KOOLAID2 on April 6, 2012 at 8:57 PM

Anyone betting on a bad economy in November will be disappointed and also is an enemy of the state

liberal4life on March 9, 2012 at 11:19 PM

JPeterman on April 6, 2012 at 8:58 PM

Teh Won will decree SCOTUS unconstitutional. -DBear

4Grace on April 6, 2012 at 8:59 PM

Exit fun fact from Rasmussen: Just 15 percent of likely voters think the Court puts too many limits on the federal government compared to 30 percent who think it doesn’t put enough.

even after the strip-search ruling? that’s police state territory

DBear on April 6, 2012 at 8:59 PM

“He’s a rube, like most commenters on HA” — Dave Rywall

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2012 at 9:00 PM

“He is stupid” — Maureen Dowd

“Alito is creepy” — Maureen Dowd

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2012 at 9:01 PM

Tell Thomas to shut up and pass me my Pepsi. –Anita Hill l4l

4Grace on April 6, 2012 at 9:02 PM

“He and Scalia must die soon” — Kos rats

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2012 at 9:02 PM

“Something to do with coke cans” — KeninCT

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2012 at 9:02 PM

“If I had a court, it would look like me” — Obama

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2012 at 9:03 PM

“This court is a big f’n deal” — Biden

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2012 at 9:04 PM

“If I had a court, it would look like me” — Obama

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2012 at 9:03 PM

ROFL. You’re killing me.

4Grace on April 6, 2012 at 9:05 PM

“He should recuse himself” — Elena Kagan (of Hot Air)

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2012 at 9:05 PM

“If I had a court, it would look like me” — Obama

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2012 at 9:03 PM
ROFL. You’re killing me.

4Grace on April 6, 2012 at 9:05 PM

The irony in this one is nearly killing me :)

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2012 at 9:05 PM

He’s an uncle Tom and should be shunned.

Liberal4Life

JPeterman on April 6, 2012 at 9:06 PM

Now, let me be clear. — Dr. Tessssla

4Grace on April 6, 2012 at 9:07 PM

A very wise man.

lonestar1 on April 6, 2012 at 9:08 PM

I think arguments are chiefly a way for the Court to face the public rather than for the lawyers to face the Court. After all, if everything was done on paper, with the justices issuing momentous opinions without ever showing their faces publicly, it’d make their job as a check on democratic majorities even harder.

A very astute observation, in part. Having argued a number of cases before the Texas Supreme Court and a few before the SCOTUS, I have no problem at all with the Justices machine gunning counsel with questions in high profile cases like this one. It is important that the issues and arguments in such cases get as much public exposure as possible, and they will through contentious questioning by the jurists.

My problem with such an approach is when it is done in the run of the mill cases, where indeed some Justices feel that it is their mission in life to make the “lowly” lawyers appearing before them look foolish or unprepared, when neither is hardly ever the case. I fully agree with Justice Thomas here, that the Justices should let counsel at least have about 15 minutes to present argument before breaking in, if at all. But, I have argued cases where either my opposing or me were interrupted in argument right after, “May it Please the Court” . . . Actually it’s very rude and unnecessary.

TXUS on April 6, 2012 at 9:08 PM

I realize this ain’t QOTD, but, here come da judge!

OkieDoc on April 6, 2012 at 9:09 PM

Heh, you guys took all the good snarks already. Great work.

LegendHasIt on April 6, 2012 at 9:09 PM

my opposing counsel . . .

They don’t teach you to type or hit the preview button in law school.

TXUS on April 6, 2012 at 9:10 PM

“Uncle Tom” — KeninCT

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2012 at 8:48 PM

Good one. (:

SparkPlug on April 6, 2012 at 9:11 PM

Has libtard4life been abducted? I have been seeing a lot of imaginary dialogue on here with him lately…

Glenn Jericho on April 6, 2012 at 9:11 PM

“If I had a court, it would look like me” — Obama

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2012 at 9:03 PM

Hahah. That one is even better.

SparkPlug on April 6, 2012 at 9:12 PM

SparkPlug on April 6, 2012 at 9:12 PM

Left you a reply on the “pebble”, on last night’s QotD thread.

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2012 at 9:13 PM

Thomas should abdicate.
csdeven

katy the mean old lady on April 6, 2012 at 9:13 PM

OkieDoc on April 6, 2012 at 9:09 PM

Heh. Thanks… Now I know where that ‘Laugh In’ meme was begun.

LegendHasIt on April 6, 2012 at 9:13 PM

Checks and balances go out the window when the court cases are decided on ideological bases.

liberal4life on April 5, 2012 at 10:19 AM

JPeterman on April 6, 2012 at 9:15 PM

Has libtard4life been abducted? I have been seeing a lot of imaginary dialogue on here with him lately…

Glenn Jericho on April 6, 2012 at 9:11 PM

I offered him a job counting and tagging polar bears. Maybe he’s in Manitoba. Or, at least, his inedible parts.

katy the mean old lady on April 6, 2012 at 9:16 PM

Teh Won will decree SCOTUS unconstitutional. -DBear
4Grace on April 6, 2012 at 8:59 PM

Right after he declares himself King for life.

lonestar1 on April 6, 2012 at 9:17 PM

This political court is h#llbent on creating laws from the bench. Unprecedented if you ask me.

The very definition of activism and judicial over-reach

liberal4life on April 5, 2012 at 7:54 PM

JPeterman on April 6, 2012 at 9:17 PM

Obama will appoint 12 new justices during his next term. Count it. I will never have to eat these words. –crr6

4Grace on April 6, 2012 at 9:17 PM

+ 7%

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2012 at 8:50 PM

+7%…!

:)

Seven Percent Solution on April 6, 2012 at 9:19 PM

I disagree, I think there should be term limits on Supreme Court and all federal judges. I also think should be term limits on congress and all federal employees should work on a contract bases, renewable every five to ten years.

We just have too many people who see government as a life time occupation. I also think it really is troublesome in congress where seniority reigns. The reason these old geezers keep getting reelected is because the people in that district or state (in the case of the senate) want to keep getting hand outs by electing a guy who will get some plum spot on a committee just because they have been there forever. That temptation has to be done away with, and term limits is the way.

William Eaton on April 6, 2012 at 9:20 PM

Funny posts. One thing that still puzzles me after all these years. What exactly did Justice Thomas do that was sexual harassment? I never saw anything bad during the hearings. Oh, and I noticed little Anita Hill never did get married. I wonder if she has “issues”?

arnold ziffel on April 6, 2012 at 9:20 PM

Obama will appoint 12 new justices during his next term. Count it. I will never have to eat these words. –crr6

4Grace on April 6, 2012 at 9:17 PM

On serious note, he’d make the court in Chavez’ his image.

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2012 at 9:21 PM

There are plenty of grillers on the court.

Thomas is a slow cooker.

profitsbeard on April 6, 2012 at 9:21 PM

Funny posts. One thing that still puzzles me after all these years. What exactly did Justice Thomas do that was sexual harassment? I never saw anything bad during the hearings. Oh, and I noticed little Anita Hill never did get married. I wonder if she has “issues”?

arnold ziffel on April 6, 2012 at 9:20 PM

Janet Napolitano was her lawyer.

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2012 at 9:22 PM

LegendHasIt on April 6, 2012 at 9:13 PM

Yep. “Vote for Pigmeat!

Pigmeat for President!

We want Pigmeat!”

OkieDoc on April 6, 2012 at 9:22 PM

I offered him a job counting and tagging polar bears. Maybe he’s in Manitoba. Or, at least, his inedible parts.

katy the mean old lady on April 6, 2012 at 9:16 PM

She went to Antarctica. She be looking long time for them.

arnold ziffel on April 6, 2012 at 9:22 PM

arnold ziffel on April 6, 2012 at 9:20 PM

She never married? I did not know this. You may be on to something.

4Grace on April 6, 2012 at 9:23 PM

Schadenfreude

..you were on a roll brother!
…the chickens have come home to roost!

KOOLAID2 on April 6, 2012 at 9:24 PM

This was a pretty good read, except for the boring recollection of the Anita-idiocy.

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2012 at 9:24 PM

“Santorum should drop out” — Various

29Victor on April 6, 2012 at 9:25 PM

Oh, and I noticed little Anita Hill never did get married. I wonder if she has “issues”?

arnold ziffel on April 6, 2012 at 9:20 PM

Hush please, you’ll wake up Dr.Tesla.

JPeterman on April 6, 2012 at 9:25 PM

Janet Napolitano was her lawyer.

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2012 at 9:22 PM

Maaan, you smacked me with that. Explains a whole lot.

arnold ziffel on April 6, 2012 at 9:25 PM

There are plenty of grillers on the court.

Thomas is a slow cooker.

profitsbeard on April 6, 2012 at 9:21 PM

…look at the grill on Ginsberg!

KOOLAID2 on April 6, 2012 at 9:25 PM

“The chickens have come home to roost” — Jeremiah Wright (thanks KOOLAID2)

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2012 at 9:26 PM

Here’s my problem: Wouldn’t oral arguments be nothing more than a regurgitation of the briefs if the Court didn’t ask questions?

Partly, but the problem is that a lot of the justices/judges like the sound of their own voices. We have a precious few minutes to put emotion, passion and animation into our arguments that can be lacking in briefs. Think of a classic courtroom drama with a soaring closing argument. Then, think of that being reduced to paper and handed to the jurors instead.

Sometimes, you can’t even finish your first sentence before you are interrupted by a justice/judge and the important thing to remember is that most of the time, the j/j’s already have a good idea of how they are going to rule by the time they hear oral arguments. They and their law clerks have been reading filings, briefs, and memos on the case for months.

Thomas lets the parties make their cases. I actually think it is a sign of courtesy and humility. When you are only given 30 minutes — as it is in many cases — you really don’t want Justice or Judge Windbag pontificating endlessly and eating into your time.

Lastly, the disruptions can take a toll on counsel. They throw you off stride and bring you into areas that can oftentimes be totally non-germane to the instant case and aren’t even addressed in the court’s decision later. Understand, of course, many j/js love to do this. They love to try to throw off those that are arguing before them. They want to keep them off balance. There is an element of sadism-king complex.

Resist We Much on April 6, 2012 at 9:26 PM

Clarence Thomas is right on this. Constitutionality is not something you can argue into existence.

astonerii on April 6, 2012 at 9:27 PM

…look at the grill on Ginsberg!

KOOLAID2 on April 6, 2012 at 9:25 PM

Ha!

4Grace on April 6, 2012 at 9:27 PM

She never married? I did not know this. You may be on to something.

4Grace on April 6, 2012 at 9:23 PM

In my opinion she wanted some Clarence but he said that ain’t happenin.

arnold ziffel on April 6, 2012 at 9:28 PM

“The Affordable Care Act helps people meet the goal outlined in the Declaration of Independence, promoting “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” — Nancy Pelosi

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2012 at 9:29 PM

Forgot the link, on Pelosi.

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2012 at 9:31 PM

Justice Thomas doesn’t need to ask a bunch of questions to know what the US Constitution says.

Dollayo on April 6, 2012 at 9:31 PM

“His wife should have recused herself” — liberal4life

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2012 at 9:32 PM

The Affordable Care Act helps people meet the goal outlined in the Declaration of Independence, promoting “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” — Nancy Pelosi

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2012 at 9:29 PM

Good catch. How could we forget the Nanster?

4Grace on April 6, 2012 at 9:32 PM

I find it funny that Allahpundit disagrees with Thomas. Meaning no offense AP, but CT is correct. No value added from the arguments, and CT’s attitude and demeanor gives the court less of a circus appearance. Kagan, Sotomayor, Kennedy and Ginsburg were embarrassing in their questioning, proving that it is better to be thought a fool, than to open ones mouth and prove it.

The Spear on April 6, 2012 at 9:33 PM

“Where in the constitution does it say…act is constitutional?”

Are you serious?” — Pelosi

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2012 at 9:35 PM

In my opinion Clarence Thomas is the quiet Conservative Hercules of the Supreme Court, he’s exactly where he should be and deserves every accolade ever accorded him.

The high court would be where it should be with four more just like him.

Speakup on April 6, 2012 at 9:37 PM

Maaan, you smacked me with that. Explains a whole lot.

arnold ziffel on April 6, 2012 at 9:25 PM

Not meant to “smack” you. It’s on her.

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2012 at 9:39 PM

“He’s a racist” — Maxine Waters

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2012 at 9:41 PM

These are not children…

I don’t know, Clarence. I’ve listened to a few of the oral arguments. I don’t remember the case, but in one, the counsel for what was the liberal side…imagine a Valley Girl whining at an Occupy rally about how education should be free. That was the tone I remember.

eeyore on April 6, 2012 at 9:41 PM

Well, well, well. Look who showed up on the most recent (Rubio) Allah thread. Why, it’s our good buddy libtard4life. Something about um…diversity I think.

4Grace on April 6, 2012 at 9:41 PM

I think that the man is totally honest about this. He mentions being introverted. He may be more introspective because of it.

It might well be that he gives the arguments merit because he wants to make sure he is right in his opinion, not an a priori conclusion.

If there is a presenting argument that causes him to look at the case in a different light, I’d bet he’d at least consider it in deliberations.

OkieDoc on April 6, 2012 at 9:42 PM

“He and fat Scalia will make the bench tilt over” — Rep. Hank Johnson (D)

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2012 at 9:43 PM

The oral argument process is pretty funny. The lawyer begins their speech, gets a couple minutes in, a justice interrupts with a question, and from then on it’s question, answer, question, answer, question, answer, …, time.

I always wonder if the lawyers write out a full hour-long speech just to read 5% of it.

netster007x on April 6, 2012 at 9:43 PM

“He and Scalia will make the bench tip over and capsize” — Rep Hank Johnson (D)- Georgia

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2012 at 9:44 PM

“This is not real reform. You’re going to be forced to buy health insurance from a company that’s going to take on average 27 percent of your money so they can pay CEOs 20 million dollars a year…and there’s no choice about that. If you don’t buy that insurance, you’re going to get a fine. This is a bill that was fundamentally written by staffers who are friendly to the insurance industry, [endorsed] by Senators who take a lot of money from the insurance industry, and it’s not health care reform. And I think it’s too bad that it should come to this…I’d kill the bill entirely.”

- Howard Dean, December, 2009

“I do believe that it’s likely the individual mandate will be declared unconstitutional. [Justice Anthony] Kennedy will probably side with the four right-wing justices. But I’d be very surprised if they — I think Kennedy will switch sides and it will be 5-4 in favor of severing that finding from the rest of the bill. The question is going to be, is this individual mandate question — can that be considered separately from the rest of the bill? And I think it will be.”

- Howard Dean, March 2012

Resist We Much on April 6, 2012 at 9:45 PM

I like Justice Thomas’ style, he brings a good measure of experience & decorum to the Supreme Court.

22044 on April 6, 2012 at 9:47 PM

Resist We Much on April 6, 2012 at 9:45 PM

“Facts are so passé” — Most of Obama’s media

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2012 at 9:47 PM

“The Supreme Court is in a war on women”

Deranged Wasserman-Schultz

22044 on April 6, 2012 at 9:50 PM

Not meant to “smack” you. It’s on her.

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2012 at 9:39 PM

No, not at all. I just did not remember that. Funny all of the odd kind “help” Ms. Hill received.

PS, you are on a roll tonight. Better save some for QOTD. :)

arnold ziffel on April 6, 2012 at 9:50 PM

“Thomas is a misogynist for cutting off my contraceptions” — Ms. Fluke (Fluck)

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2012 at 9:55 PM

“Clarence will vote this down over my dead body” — Rep. Maxine Waters

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2012 at 9:56 PM

“Republicans will make all children and old people die” — Wasserman-Schmutz

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2012 at 9:57 PM

Bmore

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2012 at 8:51 PM

I am so proud of you I can hardly contain my enjoyment of your misery. I know how you loathe the game. ; )

Bmore on April 6, 2012 at 9:58 PM

Bmore on April 6, 2012 at 9:58 PM

Can’t beat you guys, might as well join ya :)

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2012 at 9:59 PM

“The Supreme Court is in a war on women”

Deranged Wasserman-Schultz

22044 on April 6, 2012 at 9:50 PM

…for gawds sake! Have some pity! LOOK what the war has DONE to HER!

KOOLAID2 on April 6, 2012 at 10:00 PM

The premise of most arguments are wrong-headed. All the problems rest upon the bosom of an ample federal government and large hindquarters in the judiciary. Everyone wants to do more; when really they should be restrained like a bad girl at a fetish party. Sex sells, you all buying yet?

Just look at the amount of litigation or even just at marriage/divorce. What business is it of the Courts? More is less efficient. Like Thomas says and I said the other day, questioning is recent. There was a time when there were only arguments. I believe Rhenquist popularized the questioning, though I may be incorrect. Though it does show stupidity like Breyer, it should not be necessary. You put forward your case. What reason is there to show up and within the first sentence you are interrupted and never finish? E-mail questions. Save money on a building and driving, WORK-FROM-HOME-SCOTUS.com. I don’t mind questions, but the present way that is done seems absurd.

Less Congress, Less court cases, less nuances to argue over. Just effin live. They should throw out probably 50% of the cases they currently accept, they being the entire A3.

John Kettlewell on April 6, 2012 at 10:00 PM

Hmmmm…liberals don’t seem to have a problem with unelected judges when things are going their way…

kjl291 on April 6, 2012 at 10:03 PM

Comment pages: 1 2