second

The Thomas-bashing is entirely unnecessary, both in posts and in comments.

JT hates cameras. JT gets distracted when he sees himself in the monitor.

How, in the same speech, can Justice Thomas (a) dismiss the validity of the justices' questioning during oral argument but (b) claim that the presence of cameras during oral argument would adversely affect the justices' work.

Is it just me, or does that seem inconsistent?

"Well, Justice Thomas, it's no place for stubborn, illogical reasoning either, but hey..."

How true, Billy, but Justice Thomas is too much the gentleman to level publicly such a pointed critique of Stevens's and Souter's scribblings.

Sex clubs in L.A. are much better than sex clubs in NYC. But naked twister with a bunch of 40 y/o Texans is a scary thought.

O'Conner would grant Orgy Guy the suspect classification. She feels that groups making up half the population can be classified as suspect, why not such a small and oppressed segment?

The Obama article overlooked his brief (summer) stint in biglaw...

Merck's liberalism balances out Lat's conservatism.

It's easier to look disinterested when the public isn't looking.

Merck you f***ing moron. Read one of his opinions before you call them "illogical."

Lat, get rid of this jerk-off already.

10:42,

No it doesn't. Lat, at least, is smart, while Merck is an idiot. It's like Hannity and Colmes; Lat just keeps Merck around to make liberals look stupid.

I'm not a fan of Thomas at all. But I think his comments were all spot-on here. I can't see what is gained from getting media involved in Supreme Court proceedings. I also agree with Thomas's comments on discussions on race issues no longer being possible today. Everyone takes a politicized stance, muting rational discourse. As for his lack of questioning in oral arguments, my experience at a top law school suggests that some of the smartest students are generally quiet or at least speak up selectively. I'm sure the questions/answers are mostly just for rhetorical purposes for the justices cementing their own positions. That being said, I think Thomas is a pretty terrible justice overall. As for judicial pay, it's low but the President has far greater responsibility and doesn't get a helluvalot more.

"How, in the same speech, can Justice Thomas (a) dismiss the validity of the justices' questioning during oral argument but (b) claim that the presence of cameras during oral argument would adversely affect the justices' work.

Is it just me, or does that seem inconsistent?"

Not in the least. Here is the premise behind (a): vigorous/frequent questioning doesn't aid the Justices in their decisions, and is an unnecessary distraction most of the time.

The premise behind (b) is that the Justices, now with an even bigger audience, will attempt to play to the cameras (I'm looking at you, Breyer and Scalia), which will, in turn, cause them to become even more grandstanding in their questioning, which, if you accept the premise behind (a), is even worse than the current situation.

Oh, I forgot one point:

Billy Merck should never be allowed to blog again. I hate every single one of your posts, Billy. Die in a fire.

It seems almost certainly unconstitutional under Lawrence to ban what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home (which it appears is exactly what the Texas suburb did).

10:48, but the president gets perks like a house with a bowling alley. i think judges and justices are responsible for minor expenses like their own housing and transportation.

Lat, can you please automate the deletion of Merck's posts? If you want, I can write you a few snippets of code. It's really not a big deal.

"Well, Justice Thomas, it's no place for stubborn, illogical reasoning either, but hey..."

I.e., "Justice Thomas does not reach the result I would prefer." Wait a minute, is Billy Merck SOC's pen-name?