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:
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: « Previous 1 2
thatsafactjack on May 14, 2013 at 2:43 PM
++++
pambi on May 14, 2013 at 2:45 PM
Figures…It is clear a lot of the law degrees handed out by Harvard are nothing but political advocacy degrees.
I wonder what type of law does he practice? Constitutional, Criminal, Patent, etc.
William Eaton on May 14, 2013 at 2:47 PM
I see the scumbags are still keeping some folks blood pressure up.
Carry on. I’m sure the trolls and HA enjoy y’all spending quality time lining their pockets.
cozmo on May 14, 2013 at 2:48 PM
qwertASRDRDDSAWAS1DFGSDFSGHG
thatsafactjack on May 14, 2013 at 2:48 PM
An expert in fraud with a specialty in libel.
NotCoach on May 14, 2013 at 2:48 PM
As usual, you have forgotten.
A while back RWM took you to task.
And you went to dinner.
Damn, you are stupid !
Jabberwock on May 14, 2013 at 2:48 PM
Probably Divorce, so he can advocate for himself in the future. And you know what they say about a man who acts as his own lawyer…
Liam on May 14, 2013 at 2:48 PM
Perverted liberal.
cozmo on May 14, 2013 at 2:49 PM
Nice little company you got there….be a shame if anything happened to it.
MTF on May 14, 2013 at 2:49 PM
thatsafactjack on May 14, 2013 at 2:50 PM
He has stated that he really was not much of a law student, so after he graduated he went into something else. I’m figuring it’s hospitality, cause he’s just so ingratiating.
BeachBum on May 14, 2013 at 2:53 PM
Can I contribute my urine submerged likeness of teh one and a fecal smeared image of moochele?
freedomfirst on May 14, 2013 at 2:53 PM
So he practices Transgender Animal Law?
You know not to be funny but does Harvard offer Transgender Animal Husbandry now? Yes I am serious considering the massive increase in the last 20 years in idiotic degrees that are useless no matter what school you graduated from.
William Eaton on May 14, 2013 at 2:55 PM
That depends: Do you want to be impoverished by the IRS, or have your land stolen by the EPA?
NotCoach on May 14, 2013 at 2:57 PM
Ok…It is all clear now. He went from a law student at Harvard to a Transgender student at Harvard. Not that there is anything wrong with that….
In fact that might be an improvement…
William Eaton on May 14, 2013 at 2:58 PM
AGAIN, nobrain is NOT a graduate of Harvard or ANY law school.
Period.
Story.
End of.
The very first mention nobrain made of its alleged Harvard Law degree was in an attempt to try and bolster Obama’s credentials. Nobrain, erroneously, argued that the ELECTION of the President of the Harvard Law Review, as is the case with most law reviews, was a MERITORIOUS PROCESS. It claimed to know this because it went there.
Elections are not meritorious processes.
Resist We Much on May 14, 2013 at 3:00 PM
Sometimes I hate this blog, but the jokes/repartee here are why I keep coming back – ROFL!
22044 on May 14, 2013 at 3:01 PM
You know what’s hilarious about that? He talks about it like a Harvard Law degree is a BS, but you need a BS to get into a law school. How many people in this world get a BS, move on to law or medical school (and graduate!), then never actually practice law or medicine?
NotCoach on May 14, 2013 at 3:04 PM
Succubus in chief
dirtengineer on May 14, 2013 at 3:04 PM
That’s funny right there. I don’t care who you are.
There Goes the Neighborhood on May 14, 2013 at 3:04 PM
From now on:
nonpartisanElitist on May 14, 2013 at 2:40 PMthat’s the only thing that fits. Nobody cares what your credentials are, you are a louthesome loud mouth that doesn’t believe facts matter. Obama got admitted to Columbia by saying he was from Kenya…if not, why won’t he release his college transcripts? That’s some facts we’d all like to see…
kirkill on May 14, 2013 at 3:04 PM
The Ivy League has continued to turn out nothing but salivating inepts, who demand nothing but a premium for their arrogant elitist status over the paltry wages of the ignorant masses.
After going through a half-dozen of those inepts as CEO, our company finally wised-up and put the #2, a non-Ivy Leaguer, in charge.
Funny how well the company has managed, even in these dark times.
Turtle317 on May 14, 2013 at 3:05 PM
Let me clarify this;
Harvard, as with most law schools, ELECTS the President of its Law Review. The choice of President is NOT a meritorious process. That ceased in the 1970s.
Now, if nobrain considers ‘ox gets gored’ to be an ‘old people idiom,’ it quite obviously didn’t attend Harvard Law school when the old procedure was in place. Since it is ‘young,’ it would have attended under the new system where the President is ELECTED. Given the fact that it did not know this tells us that he never attended Harvard.
Resist We Much on May 14, 2013 at 3:06 PM
RWM, you misinterpret me
Becoming President of Law Review is a meritorious process since you need to be on law review to be President, and to get on law review depends on grades and a written test. So you cannot just become president of harvard law review through affirmative action or such as I was arguing against.
logic ain’t your strong suit, is it?
nonpartisan on May 14, 2013 at 3:09 PM
I don’t believe he has a law degree either but IF, and that’s a Big IF, he does have one, it all points to not being able to pass the bar. As in JFK Jr. dumb.
BeachBum on May 14, 2013 at 3:09 PM
The ones who can’t pass their bar/licensing exams.
Lily on May 14, 2013 at 3:11 PM
Yes. And these are the same clowns who seem to not understand the little important parts in the U.S. Constitutions that reads government shall not infringe.
Even a fifth grader understands that concept.
Turtle317 on May 14, 2013 at 3:14 PM
I never took the bar because I had no interest in practicing
nonpartisan on May 14, 2013 at 3:15 PM
It took me literally two seconds to look up the process. Before you attempt to bullsh!t your way through something a little research is advisable. Grades are irrelevant. The only thing anyone needs to do is write a paper. It is an entirely subjective process.
NotCoach on May 14, 2013 at 3:15 PM
@RWM
In other words, you’re the one who isn’t bright enough to get his point, not that he can’t clearly make his case.
How many racist Dems over the years have caught heat for their obvious racism, then said the next day the exact same thing as the troll?
Liam on May 14, 2013 at 3:17 PM
And surely a Harvard Law grad would also know what natural law rights are, but our resident Harvard Law grad did not. He exposed that tidbit of monstrous ignorance in a gun grabbing thread maybe a month ago.
NotCoach on May 14, 2013 at 3:18 PM
Notcoach: actually, Romney has a law degree from Harvard, I think… and has never “used it” per se, as an attorney.
He’s made hundreds of millions with the other half of his degree, the MBA.
Law’s actually a fantastic general degree. Hopefully it teaches you how to think. One of the biggest clues nonpartisan is not an attorney is in fact that she/he cannot think.
But if he or she DID go to law school, I dare him to list the very first case in Civil Procedure; where a court can exert personal jurisdiction over someone if they are in the state.
Vanceone on May 14, 2013 at 3:19 PM
What’s your BS or BA in and where did you get it?
NotCoach on May 14, 2013 at 3:19 PM
Then why did you stay in school at it, and rack up all that student loan debt you were whining about the other day?
Is your real name Niel N. Bobb?
Or is that what you do?
Liam on May 14, 2013 at 3:20 PM
Who spends a minimum of $227,700.00 on law school, and puts up with the bullshit that is part and parcel of going to law school, but isn’t interested in practicing law?
totherightofthem on May 14, 2013 at 3:21 PM
Duly noted, sir! I see I was not on the side of error.
Turtle317 on May 14, 2013 at 3:21 PM
I never took the bar because I had no interest in practicing
nonpartisan on May 14, 2013 at 3:15 PM
Harvard Law and no interest in practicing. Beautiful. Just beautiful.
Having Mother around to help out on the bill is just icing on the cake.
Sound like a trust fund baby to me.
Jabberwock on May 14, 2013 at 3:22 PM
Affirmative action was not the issue.
His election as the ‘First black president of HLR’ did not involve a meritorious process.
Here’s how it works. At the end of 1L, you can enter the LR writing competition. At Harvard, 46 1Ls are invited to join every year. 20 are chosen solely based on their comp scores. 14 are chosen based on comp and grades. The remaining 12 are discretionary slots, which professors and 3Ls fill as they choose. Under Harvard’s policy, affirmative action goals CAN be used to fill the slots even if the invited did not perform well in the comp or have lower grades – I’m not saying this relative to Obama. You brought up AA.
Sooooo, 26% of the slots filled at the end of 1L are done so on a purely discretionary basis.
Finally, the President is ELECTED by the editors (80 when Obama was elected, 88 now).
Resist We Much on May 14, 2013 at 3:34 PM
Considering the pedigree, nonpartisan sure is stupid.
Keep the heat on !
Jabberwock on May 14, 2013 at 3:38 PM
Logic is something you wouldn’t know if it walked up behind you and poked you in the ass. It goes along with honesty with you….
Yes, you have.
Still waiting on those answers about Vidal, Holy Trinity, Reynolds, and Everson.
Resist We Much on May 14, 2013 at 3:41 PM
You just never quit, do you you?
~thumbs up~
Liam on May 14, 2013 at 3:45 PM
your ass? sorry couldn’t resist…
nonpartisan on May 14, 2013 at 3:47 PM
Harvard must have an affirmative action slot for moron.
BeachBum on May 14, 2013 at 3:48 PM
actually, it was the issue. Maybe not directly stated, but the underlying argument was that Obama got all his impressive credentials (Colubmia, Harvard, Law Review) not on his merit (which would prove his intellectual credence) but through affirmative action because of the color of his skin
nonpartisan on May 14, 2013 at 3:48 PM
Feeling a little defensive?
NotCoach on May 14, 2013 at 3:48 PM
He did. Lied his way into Columbia, and was rushed through Harvard. All because of the color of his skin. He is our first affirmative action president. I think it’s high time to abandon affirmative action entirely.
NotCoach on May 14, 2013 at 3:51 PM
How about you go play Switch. Stuff one thumb up your ass and the other in your nose, and wait for someone to yell, “Switch!”
Liam on May 14, 2013 at 3:51 PM
Actually, it wasn’t…your Dowderisation notwithstanding.
READ THE THREAD. YOU BROUGHT UP HIS ‘INTELLIGENCE’ FIRST. YOU WERE THE ONE WHO BROUGHT UP ‘ALL OF HIS IMPRESSIVE CREDENTIALS.’
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/01/jay-carney-hey-benghazi-happened-a-long-time-ago/comment-page-1/#comments
Resist We Much on May 14, 2013 at 4:00 PM
LIAR.
Resist We Much on May 14, 2013 at 4:01 PM
Education must be lacking.
dominigan on May 14, 2013 at 4:03 PM
I believe that NP really did attend Harvard Law
n Maintenance Community College.
slickwillie2001 on May 14, 2013 at 4:05 PM
I’ll state it outright, he got into Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard ALL on the basis of affirmative action.
All of his work was graded on the basis of affirmative action.
All of his degrees were awarded on the basis of affirmative action.
That’s the very nature of affirmative action, and anyone that doesn’t understand that is a dumbass. It means his ‘credentials’ aren’t really all that impressive.
slickwillie2001 on May 14, 2013 at 4:09 PM
What that Leftist, baby-killing witch is doing is nothing less than extortion. She should be impeached.
WannabeAnglican on May 14, 2013 at 4:31 PM
Why do most of our trolls seem to be gay?
slickwillie2001 on May 14, 2013 at 4:40 PM
They don’t seem to be gay.
Most gay guys I know have more testosterone than these scumbag punks.
They don’t rate as high as beta on their best days.
cozmo on May 14, 2013 at 4:51 PM
Absent his transcripts, the vacuum can be filled with any old theory that happens by.
Really, there exists NO evidence of his “intellectual credence”
You Harvard folks just assume it. Wrongly as you have proven.
Jabberwock on May 14, 2013 at 4:52 PM
Why did my reply to slickwillie2001 disappear into moderation hell?
NotCoach on May 14, 2013 at 4:54 PM
Why in the hell are any non-governmental organizations being paid to implement law?
BacaDog on May 14, 2013 at 4:55 PM
Because like many churches, they are sucking at the government teet.
Churches are cutting their own throats pimping for the government.
cozmo on May 14, 2013 at 5:00 PM
Because the Dems f*cked up and are now, as EJ says, on the Strugglebus.
Jabberwock on May 14, 2013 at 5:01 PM
nonpartisan looking dimwitted as ever. No way that one even gradiated high screwel. No way.
CW on May 14, 2013 at 6:16 PM
She has to go. Unrepentant recidivist. The definition of partisan hack.
FireBlogger on May 14, 2013 at 6:26 PM
Nasty, vile treasonous wench. May your judgement match your evil heart.
However, in the meantime you can hang around in abortion clinics performing 3rd and 4th trimester abortions and get your jollies. Might even be able to make some shoes or pens out of them.
acyl72 on May 14, 2013 at 6:54 PM
I haven’t seen nonpartisan’s answer yet.
Barnestormer on May 14, 2013 at 7:30 PM
Thanks for the clarification. The Internet Slang Directory was going crazy!
AesopFan on May 14, 2013 at 7:45 PM
I love her expression. It’s always the same and always projects complete contempt for the people.
JellyToast on May 14, 2013 at 10:24 PM
Non sequitur.
Everyone observes the non-relevance by the content of every single one of your posts.
Difficultas_Est_Imperium on May 15, 2013 at 1:11 AM
Sebelius should be impeached. This regime is nothing but a gang of crooks.
They might just ignore you because you’re full of shit.
dogsoldier on May 15, 2013 at 6:12 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2