yeah it takes skill to do that, because this is excellent news for john mccain!

buahauuauauahahahaha john mccain john mccain john mccain

asslobster

I wish Justice Thomas would STFU... oh wait.

the g-20 was in pittsburgh...although since it didn't take place on the island you live in, I'm surprised you even got the state right

this site is beyond elitis

by "the G-20 meetings in Philadelphia," I assume you mean "the G-20 meetings in Pittsburgh." Or perhaps you don't really follow the news, or simply can't comprehend that the two are distinct, separate cities.

Justice Thomas translated: I need extra time to process the arguments that are being made. It intimidates me that my colleagues ask questions that demonstrate levels of insight that are way over my head.

OMG IT'S PITTSBURGH

PITTSBURGH

PITTSBURGH

PITTSBURGH

Hmmm...do you think Justice Thomas is only sour b/c Sotie wouldn't give in to his advances? Like McCain at Palin or Gore at Hillary?

Dear JaKe,

They've just found Partner Emeritus
in the swimming pool
Guess you won't be going back
to school anymore

Justice Thomas translated: No one else really agrees with my completely insane theories about constitutional law. And heavens to Betsy, some people even have different ideas! And they telegraph them during oral argument! And they actually challenge the lawyers when they disagree! And they are sharp enough to weigh the competing evidence and synthesize the strands and try to pick it apart! And they are all smart! And I hate affirmative action! And I created a hostile work environment at the EEOC and lied during my confirmation hearings! Gee whiz!

This post is addressed to Commenter #11:

While my family does indeed own an obscene number of swimming pools, the correct term for these facilities is natatorium. Swimming pools are for paupers masquerading as members of the middle class; natatoriums are for those who, in addition to their own private swimming area, require luxurious accommodations such as as a diving tank, facilities for water polo, and a private aquarium. Please, do not disparage my family's name by calling it a swimming pool.

There are too many products of affirmative action on the bench.

A Supreme Court Justice saying too many Ivy Leaguers on the bench? You mean someone else besides me has seen the light? Yes! I've been vindicated by....

Justice Thomas? Man...that's like having a celebrity red-carpet interview with Fred Savage.

13,

Natatorium? You pee in the pool or what?

I wonder if Thomas understands that asking tough questions is how the court ensures to both sides that they have an opportunity to address directly the court's greatest concerns with the case. Not requiring the parties to have ESP is a benefit to them, not a form of hazing.

Justice Thomas: Grow some balls and publicly state that oral argument should be abolished and that briefing is all the Supreme Court needs or should need. Stop sniping tangentially about it. If you sincerely believe that oral argument provides no benefit whatsoever to the Court or to the lawyers, demand that it be scrapped. Lobby Roberts. Make the case more forcefully. Stop being a whiny baby.

Clarence TTThomas

Kash, I thought better of you. If you want to be a journalist, you have to get basic facts rights. The G-20 was in Pittsburgh, not Philadelphia. Your grammar and spelling may be better than Elie's and I generally enjoy your sense of humor, but basic fact-checking is more important than any of that.

Thomas has a point. As a former USCOA clerk I can't think of a single occasion in which my judge changed his mind after oral arguments. Most cases are so thoroughly briefed these days that it's pretty hard to imagine how the lawyer could come up with something new in a few minutes of speaking. As much as I love the pageantry of oral arguments, is it really worth all the hassle and expense? I don't know the answer to that question and I recognize that other judges might work differently than my former boss. But the point is that Thomas' argument is plausible and worthy of serious consideration.

Soto is a loudmouth Latina, as everyone expected. I hope her clerks are competent writers.

Clarence Thomas should resign and thereby reduce the number of Ivy League alumni on the Supreme Court. He could be replaced by, say, Diane Wood, who went to Texas.

8 = racist. But of course libs aren't racist when they condescend to conservative minorities.

You could never get eight horses into a pool for a regulation outdoor water polo match. I hate it when rich people pretend that they actually play this impossible sport.

I love how leftists always want to call Justice Thomas foolish. That way, of course, they don't have to face his arguments. Nor do they have to own up to the fact that no one has been more foolish in the last 70 years than leftist Justices who just make up whatever they want and call it constitutional.

We need to bomb swimming pools back to the stoneage!
-DOJ Secure

24 -

Exactly. But with the press, the universities (and law schools), and Hollywood all in progressive hands, progressives get a pass no matter how much they condescend to black individuals who dare to think for themselves.

Thomas is right.

People need to be treated with dignity and respect, and badgering lawyers just for the fun of it is an abuse of power.

If there is a question to clarify, fine. Another to explore an alternative way of thinking about a question, also fine. Even to voice disagreement, so long as that question is to honestly evaluate the lawyer's answer, fine.

But just to badger them to be a jerk...well, that's what those in power have been doing for a very long time, and is an abuse of the public trust, because the judge is not evaluating the question, s/he is pressing a particular viewpoint which will never change, regardless of the persuasiveness of the answer.

Oral argument is a total waste of time, at least at the Supreme Court level. It's also a waste of time at the Court of Appeals. Oral argument can help at the trial level, because so many of the sitting judges are too lazy to read the briefs, or they simply can't understand words that are longer than 4 letters.

Agreed, any lawyer from an Ivy or substitute-Ivy, or anyone practicing at fed cir or sup ct level is exempt from oral argument or anything else that would get in the way of their brilliant legal minds. For the rest of us, convincing people and changing minds even as lowly as a state court trial, not spending 40+ hours (80? 120?) on a brief, are what we're stuck with.

As a former COA and district court clerk, I think people underestimate the kind of briefs we see. Oral arguments are indeed helpful and depending on the judge assist in the drafting of the final opinion.

SCOTUS? Might be a different animal. But if the judges I worked for were elevated, I could see them both finding oral argument helpful in putting ghosts to rest.

I just want to wish Justice Ginsburg good luck- we're all counting on her.

Clarence who??? Never heard of him.

@34

How dare you not study for the LSATs. You should work 5x as hard.