Clarence Thomas: The Pen Is Mightier Than the Microphone

Today marks the fourth anniversary since the last time that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas asked a question during oral arguments. The National Law Journal’s Tony Mauro notes the occasion by discussing a recent law review article entitled “Why Justice Thomas Should Speak at Oral Arguments,” which claims that Thomas is harming both himself and the Court with his damnable silence. As Mauro writes:

Author David Karp argues in the Florida Law Review that, by keeping mum, Thomas in essence hides the ball and shields his often provocative legal positions from being tested before they make their way into Court opinions....

"By removing himself from oral argument, Justice Thomas' opinions do not benefit from the full adjudicative process designed to test theories in open court," Karp wrote. "Many of his opinions, therefore, read less like the product of actual litigation, and more like constitutional commentary." Rattling off other unorthodox views Thomas has taken, Karp added, "Justice Thomas' revision of the constitutional order emerges from his chambers without exposure to public debate."

I’ll begin by admitting that I, too, would be happy to hear more from Thomas during oral arguments. But let’s not forget that both sides (and their friends) in every Supreme Court dispute file lengthy legal briefs that lay out their respective arguments in great detail. More importantly, as Thomas told law students at the University of Alabama last year, the justices have already read the various briefs and basically made their minds up by the time oral arguments come around. Thus the “exposure to public debate” that Karp emphasizes isn’t the only place where the action is. The justices read and evaluate the various briefs and then set about persuading each other in order to reach a majority of five or more. And as the respected Supreme Court reporter Jan Crawford Greenburg has convincingly documented, Thomas is anything but quiet during those crucial debates among the justices. Here’s Greenburg writing in The Wall Street Journal in 2007:

Clarence Thomas has borne some of the most vitriolic personal attacks in Supreme Court history. But the persistent stereotypes about his views on the law and subordinate role on the court are equally offensive--and demonstrably false. An extensive documentary record shows that Justice Thomas has been a significant force in shaping the direction and decisions of the court for the past 15 years.

Immediately upon his arrival at the court, Justice Thomas was savaged by court-watchers as Antonin Scalia's dutiful apprentice, blindly following his mentor's lead. It's a grossly inaccurate portrayal, imbued with politically incorrect innuendo, as documents and notes from Justice Thomas's very first days on the court conclusively show. Far from being a Scalia lackey, the rookie jurist made clear to the other justices that he was willing to be the solo dissenter, sending a strong signal that he would not moderate his opinions for the sake of comity. By his second week on the bench, he was staking out bold positions in the private conferences where justices vote on cases. If either justice changed his mind to side with the other that year, it was Justice Scalia joining Justice Thomas, not the other way around.

A final word in defense of Justice Thomas: His dissents often get it right.

For more on the “vitriolic personal attacks” that Thomas endured, take a few minutes to read Edith Efron’s extraordinary 1992 Reason feature, “Native Son: Why A Black Supreme Court Justice Has No Rights A White Man Need Respect.”

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Sean Connery||

    I've got to ask you about the Penis Mightier.

  • Old Mexican||

    The National Law Journal’s Tony Mauro notes the occasion by discussing a recent law review article entitled “Why Justice Thomas Should Speak at Oral Arguments,” which claims that Thomas is harming both himself and the Court with his damnable silence.


    "Few words speak volumes"
  • ||

    Maybe he's doing himself the favor by preventing blurbs like, Get over here so I can tap that phat ass you skanky bitch.

  • ||

    Quite frequently in law school, the key opinion to read isn't the majority's, it's the dissent's.

  • Come On Clarence||

    Love Clarence Thomas...most especially, where he comes down on the court cases before him. BUT, oral arguments are meant for grandstanding and if there's any point of view that this country needs to hear more of it's that which adheres to the Constitution (protecting individual economic and personal liberty)

  • ||

    If Thomas thinks oral arguments are nothing but anachronostic bit of ego-stroking judicial theater, I'm not gonna argue. Because he's right.

    Still, I would also like to see a Justice monopolize oral argument by forcing the lawyers to read to him the relevant Constitutional language, and then asking them to expound upon its plain meaning.

    "So, attorney for Chicago, you have correctly located the language of the Constitution that says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Would you care to explain, in your own words, how laws prohibiting the ownership of arms is not an infringement?"

  • Paul||

    Would you care to explain, in your own words, how laws prohibiting the ownership of arms is not an infringement?"

    We're talking about reasonable regulations for safety.

    Do I get my cheque?

  • ||

    His dissent in Gonzalez vs Reich was fucking awesome.

    If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article I powers -- as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause -- have no meaningful limits.
  • ||

    INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAAAAUUUUUUSSSSEEEEEE!!

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    My all time favorite dissent. Not that I've read a ton of em, but that's a good one.

  • Attorney||

    Oral argument is practically meaningless.

  • ||

    Oral is not the real thing.

  • Bill||

    You can say that again.

  • Slut Bunwalla||

    "Many of his opinions, therefore, read less like the product of actual litigation, and more like constitutional commentary."

    God forbid the Constitution should have anything to do with a Supreme Court Justice's opinions.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Indeed, it should all be about "precedent" and 'stare decisis" - unless of course that would restrict the court from forcing the country further to the left.

    In that case, "precedent" should go right out the window - and a new "precedent" created that would then be sacred forever and ever amen.

  • Silence is Golden||

    Boy, just imagine if 0bama were to follow this example: no more teleprompters, no more permanent campaign, and no more "Uh... Uh... Uh..."

    It might not restore his ratings, but it would probably keep them from plummeting any further.

    Of course, you realize this is why we opponents would never wish to deny 0bama his right to talk himself blue in the face.

  • As Seen In Dilbert||

  • robc||

    If either justice changed his mind to side with the other that year, it was Justice Scalia joining Justice Thomas, not the other way around.

    Ive said this plenty of times, but needs repeating:

    With rare exceptions, when Thomas and Scalia disagree, it is Thomas that is right.

  • ||

    Caption:

    "Fucking lawyers- don't they ever shut up?"

  • ||

    He looks to me like he's all grown up. He probably knows when he wants to talk.

  • Tim Hogan||

    Mr. Justice Thomas's views are often skewed by his apparent lack of ability to see facts other than those which support his causes.

    http://dangerousintersection.o.....ights-act/

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement