News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Justice Clarence Thomas uncovered a seven-year-old bug in... by pg_bot on Friday April 01, 2022 @01:04PM (#30880543)
He's given a couple of reasons for this. The first is that he doesn't view it as particularly helpful.

“I think it’s unnecessary in deciding cases to ask that many questions, and I don’t think it’s helpful, I think we should listen to lawyers who are arguing their cases, and I think we should allow the advocates to advocate.”

Most of the general public view oral arguments as the totality of the work that the justices do, but in reality a lot of the work goes on behind the scenes. Reading up on prior decisions, parsing the grammar of a law, reviewing history at the time the law was created, debating behind the scenes, etc. So I could see why asking questions during oral arguments isn't particularly important to him. The other justices do plenty of questioning anyway, so it often becomes redundant.

The second reason he has stated is that he is self conscious about the way he talks because he grew up speaking Geechee (aka Gullah) in rural Georgia. Since he was teased about this dialect, he formed a habit of not speaking.

Re:Justice Clarence Thomas uncovered a seven-year-old bug in... by lupire on Friday April 01, 2022 @02:15PM (#30881484)
It's a shame because he has a lifetime appointment and only one person outranks him, so he is the only person in the world who can freely speak Geechee and change the world's opinion of it.
Re:Justice Clarence Thomas uncovered a seven-year-old bug in... by gotaquestion on Friday April 01, 2022 @01:06PM (#30880571)
What would court case be like if none of the Justices ever spoke? Would it just be two sides giving their arguments, witness, and closing arguments? Seems like that would speed things along. But when is communication every 100% concise? Still seems suspicious to me.
Re:Justice Clarence Thomas uncovered a seven-year-old bug in... by Uehreka on Friday April 01, 2022 @01:23PM (#30880768)
Would it even speed things along? The oral argument part of SCOTUS cases takes way less time than the months of deliberation before they reach a verdict. And for the attorneys involved (many of whom are arguing the biggest and most important case of their lives, sometimes with the future of a huge issue hanging in the balance) I imagine they care a great deal about being able to clear up any questions or confusions the justices may have, even at the expense of a few more days (or even weeks) in court.
Re:Justice Clarence Thomas uncovered a seven-year-old bug in... by orzig on Friday April 01, 2022 @01:19PM (#30880707)
What would the beach be like if everyone went today?

It's not unreasonable to use the actual context when deciding

Re:Justice Clarence Thomas uncovered a seven-year-old bug in... by gotaquestion on Friday April 01, 2022 @02:05PM (#30881333)
Clearly every human can't be on the beach at once. But all of the Justices can remain silent. What point are you trying to make? Maybe offer a context?
Re:Justice Clarence Thomas uncovered a seven-year-old bug in... by ProjectArcturis on Friday April 01, 2022 @01:10PM (#30880606)
This is the real answer. He knows he'll vote for the most conservative option, so the actual arguments and briefs are a waste of time for him.
Re:Justice Clarence Thomas uncovered a seven-year-old bug in... by xyzzyz on Friday April 01, 2022 @01:54PM (#30881163)
You could say the exact same thing about Justice Sotomayor, who will always vote for liberal option, but she nevertheless is active in oral hearings.