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?

Toto, I've a feeling we're not in south Florida anymore: Evolution is so silly

Welcome back to Blast Off!'s "Toto series," wherein I chronicle my adjustment to residing in America's Taint™ ...

Took a little road trip the other day, and found this sign in St. Elmo, Ala., about halfway between Mobile, Ala. and Pascagoula, Miss. Naturally, I had to stop for a photo ...

Yeah, I get the disdain for Darwin; fundies always have been allergic to science. But it's the spelling that gets to me. I mean, I've seen "your" used where "you're" ought to be -- and it drives me insane -- but "you'r?" Come on -- pick one or the other!

(And lest you think that the "E" just fell off ... the spelling was exactly the same on the other side of the sign!)

By the way, I also don't appreciate the insinuation that my nieces are monkeys.

They really are everywhere

Well, I have to hand it to the Paulistas. They certainly cover a lot of ground.

Just saw five of them (notably, all white men) on an embankment along the US 231 bypass in Dothan, Ala. It's a highly-trafficked area, near Northside Mall, and they surely were visible with their large blue Ron Paul signs (and, at least in a couple of cases, their generous girth).

I'm not sure how popular Ron Paul is, or will be, in Alabama. I'm trying to stay away from the obvious stereotype of the racist gun-loving God-fearing redneck ... but after seeing this fivesome, I'll just say it's mighty difficult ...

Conflict resolution, GOP style

Shades of Sumner and Brooks in Alabama, as a Republican state senator defends his honor:

A Republican state senator who punched a Democratic lawmaker in the head expressed regret, saying "that's not the way grown men solve their problems," but he said he won't immediately apologize.

Republican Sen. Charles Bishop claimed that Democratic Sen. Lowell Barron called him a "son of a (expletive)" in the Senate chamber on Thursday.

[...]

"I was raised in the woods of Arkansas and people don't say that about your mom," Bishop said.

Barron denied saying that to Bishop. He said the Jasper senator used an expletive to him and he was trying to get away when he was hit by Bishop on the side of the head near an ear. He said he had not decided if he would file charges.

Of course Bishop won't apologize, for that would be an admission of guilt, and Republics never admit guilt.

I do think one of Bishop's GOP colleagues might want to rethink his choice of words, however:

Members of the Alabama House said the incident makes the entire Legislature look bad.

"It's certainly a black eye on the Legislature and the Senate in particular," Republican Rep. Jay Love said.

Heh, indeed.