Clarence Thomas: oral arguments are pointless

I guess it's not surprising when a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court who hasn't asked a question of a lawyer in oral arguments since 2006 says that he doesn't see a reason even to have oral arguments. But as a lawyer, I find it a little distressing to hear it said so plainly.

Justice Clarence Thomas, speaking yesterday at the University of Alabama, shed a little light on his reticence, but he went further in suggesting that justices basically decided cases on the briefs, making oral arguments unnecessary:

Thomas -- who hasn't asked a lawyer a question during arguments in nearly four years -- said he and the other eight justices virtually always know where they stand on a case by reading legal briefs before oral arguments.

"So why do you beat up on people if you already know? I don't know, because I don't beat up on 'em. I refuse to participate. I don't like it, so I don't do it," Thomas said during an appearance before law students at the University of Alabama.

Thomas didn't name names, but fellow conservative Justice Antonin Scalia generally is considered the court's most aggressive questioner during oral arguments. President Barack Obama's lone nominee so far, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, isn't afraid to ask questions either.

Thomas scoffed at the idea that the justices try to use questions to influence the opinions of fellow members of the court.

"All nine of us are in the same building," he said. "If we want to sway each other we know where we are. We don't need oral arguments to do that. It doesn't make any sense to me."

Now, contrary to the article's conclusion, I don't necessarily think Justice Thomas was criticizing his fellow justices, especially his ideological near-twin, Antonin "Fat Tony" Scalia. Rather, I think he was criticizing the process -- and that's where I have a problem.

I clerked for an appellate court after law school, and I can recall at least one instance where oral arguments changed my judge's mind. While, granted, that makes more of a difference on a three-judge panel (as my court was) than with nine SCOTUS justices, the fact is that it matters. Or it should.

I'm hoping that Justice Thomas' lame, disrespectful attitude is not shared by his eight colleagues on the High Court. Boy, conservatives sure are comfortable with foregone conclusions, aren't they? I guess if they were in charge, they'd just hand the World Series trophy to the Yankees now. Why bother playing the games?