The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Justice Jackson Sets Record for New Justice in October Arguments (Updated)
The Court's newest justice was an extremely active questioner during the Supreme Court's October arguments.
The Supreme Court's newest Justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, was an extremely active questioner throughout the Court's October argument. Indeed, as Dr. Adam Feldman of EmpiricalSCOTUS tabulated, she spoke over twice as much at oral argument as any other justice. Here are the numbers, in graphical form.

Justice Jackson's engagement in oral argument has attracted notice. Here, for example, is what the Washington Post reported:
[F]ew were prepared for Jackson's venturesome debut in the court's first sitting. Over eight oral arguments, she dominated the questioning and commentary, speaking twice as much as her next most loquacious colleague. . . .
Jackson was a persistent questioner in every case. Her contributions ranged from the sweeping — a rejection of an originalist interpretation of a colorblind Constitution that provoked swoons from the liberal legal community — to the kind of mundane minutiae upon which even Supreme Court decisions turn. . . .
By the end of the eight arguments, Jackson had spoken more than 11,000 words, according to Feldman's statistics. That's about double the nearly 5,500 words spoken by runner-up Justice Sonia Sotomayor. (Justice Elena Kagan was in third place, indicating that while the court's three liberals may be outvoted in many cases this term, they are not going to be outargued.)
Unlike some other recent additions to the court, Jackson had months after her confirmation to prepare for the court's initial round of arguments. Olivia Warren, a former law clerk to Jackson during her time as a trial court judge, said the justice's questions reflect extensive preparation and interest in making sure she understands the positions the lawyers are taking in their briefs.
The Washington Post also noted that not every justice has received such positive reviews about their first oral arguments.
Some conservatives have grumbled that Jackson's outspokenness has been hailed as admirable, while justices on the right of the political spectrum — Justice Neil M. Gorsuch in his debut in 2017, for instance — were criticized for coming on too strong.
Case in point, here is how the Washington Post covered Justice Gorsuch's aggressive questioning when he first joined the Court:
New Justice Neil M. Gorsuch was an active, aggressive and somewhat long-winded questioner in his debut Monday at the Supreme Court, making his presence known during a series of complicated cases about legal procedures.
Gorsuch waited barely 10 minutes into the first of three hour-long cases before kicking off what became a long chain of questions. There is no expectation at the high court that new justices are to be seen and not heard, but the 49-year-old rookie seemed to push the envelope a bit.
Gorsuch asked more questions at his first oral argument — 22 — than did any of his fellow justices at their first appearances, according to Adam Feldman, a scholar who studies all things empirical about the Supreme Court. Before Monday, Justice Sonia Sotomayor had been the leader with 15 questions.
And, according to Feldman's count, Gorsuch was wordier than all of his colleagues during their first time out, save for Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Elena Kagan, who had joined the court after representing the government there as its chief lawyer.
UPDATE: Feldman provides some additional data and analysis in this post.
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Perhaps there is to be a spirited content for leadership of an enlarged Court.
There is no contest for who is the most tedious, repetitive gaslighter among the commenters here.
Gandy,
While I have to agree with you regarding the sheer volume of the same post coming from the Rev; I don't think gaslighting means what you think it means. (I will note that if you *are* using it correctly, then that means that I am gaslighting you about gaslighting . . . which strikes me as impressively meta.)
“Gaslighting” is the attempt to convince someone that the patently unreal is real, and the Kook does that all the time. Why is the suggestion that Jackson will ever be in the running for leadership of an enlarged Court not such a misrepresentation of reality?
Whereas you are merely wrong, not trying to convince me of the reality of obvious bullshit.
Gandydancer can’t imagine an enlarged Supreme Court. Most Americans didn’t expect violent insurrectionists to invade our Capitol and delay the work of Congress.
No; lying and gaslighting are not the same concept. Trying to convince people that something false is true is just lying.¹ It's the object of the activity that defines gaslighting: gaslighting is about trying denying reality in order to convince someone that he or she is crazy.
¹Though, given that it's a statement about the future, what Kirkland is doing here can't really be considered lying, either. What it is is trolling, and that's all that Kirkland ever offers. (Trying to convince us that he was censored even though he's still here — now that could be called gaslighting.) You'd think someone who actually had the career he pretends to have would have better things to do. But, then, I guess it doesn't take much effort given that he just repeats the exact same false stock phrases over and over again. He likely just uses macros.
Prof. Volokh admitted to his readers on at least two occasions that he has censored me. (In one case, at least, it was more boast than admission.) In other circumstances he imposed the censorship by email.
If and when you make partner at a big firm, Mr. Nieporent, I will be pleased to compare resumes with you. Time, however, does not appear to be on your side.
You contend my comments are as predictable as the Conspirators' repetitive, low-grade, wingnutty ankle-nipping; I agree.
A windbag hiding behind a pseudonym will not be comparing resumes with anyone.
A factual assertion is gaslighting only if it’s done to make you doubt your own sanity.
If your sanity depends on the (un)truth of the good Reverend’s claims, then you’re in a cult.
Each time you guys accuse Sarcastr0 or Kirkland of gaslighting you, it’s an admission of a fragile, cult-addled worldview.
If not for double standards, the leftist media would have no standards at all.
Do you prefer the standards exhibited by white, male, bigot-friendly, right-wing blogs?
what a cartoon character you are.
It's not a double standard. The tone and manner of the two justices were in fact very different, and it's fair to call that out.
Justice Jackson's questions were insightful. She asked real questions, meaning that she actually wanted to know the answers. They moved the conversation in new and useful directions.
Justice Gorsuch's rookie questions, on the other hand, we're mostly about posturing and bullying. His questions were all rhetorical; he didn't even listen to the answers.
Gorsuch has gotten less verbose over the years, but he's still a bully in his style of questions, second only to Alito.
The only one I recall being reported seemed actually to be a bit of a lecture about how the drafters of the 14th amendment must have been in favour of racial discrimination because they were aware of racial discrimination when they drafted an amendment banning racial discrimination.
Finally, some evidence that she doesn’t see Thomas as a role model! (snark)
In order of talkativeness:
Jackson
Sotomayor
Kagan
Alito
Barrett
Roberts
Kavanaugh
Gorsuch
Thomas
Or, according to the Swamp Post, confusing quantity with quality, the order in which Justices "outargue" each other.
That Alito - hanging out with the girls!
As an advocate there's nothing worse than arguing before a "cold bench", i.e., a court that asks few or no questions, the judges/justices just stare at you.
Indeed.
I think it shows laziness and indifference. What other inference is there?
That they think the advocate is wasting their time but are too passive to tell him so.
How many oral arguments have you presented in courts?
This can’t apply to both sides. Usually a cold bench is cold to both attorneys.
It could apply to both sides at lower courts; counsel for both sides could waste the court's time by belaboring question(s). That's not so likely with discretionary jurisdiction, where the courts tend to address more substantive questions and counsel are more likely to notice that they are in the weeds.
The issue is so obvious that questions are unnecessary? That shouldn't ever be the case in jurisdictions where oral argument is at the discretion of the court, although even then, oral argument might be granted before the court realizes there's nothing of interest there.
Reminds me of college students
You know, if Alito would talk less, this almost would be a list the justices from most liberal to most conservative. (Almost since I think Sotomayor is more liberal than Jackson. Maybe.)
And it would also make the 4 female justices the 4 most talkative...
It looks almost like least libertarian to most libertarian, but switching Barrett with Roberts in the middle.
But I don't think there's much doubt that Alito is the least libertarian of the conservatives, while Gorsuch and Thomas the most.
Barrett is also little too new to be definitively above Roberts or below Kavenaugh
This racist moron should be impeached before she utters another idiotic word.
Perhaps new justices are insecure so they try to show off.
Or perhaps Jackson and Sotomayor are because they are the top two in speaking, and bottom two in thinking.
Shocker: a fan of a white, male, bigot-friendly blog disparages the thinking of two females who aren’t white.
This is no problem replacement is not solving.
shocker ... someone who can't make an argument engages in name calling.
what, exactly, are you "reverend" of?
It’s a congregation of the several brain cells composing his brain.
During her confirmation process there were questions about how much horsepower Jackson had compared to other very liberal choices and claims were made that the reason she was picked was that Biden promised a black female.
I am still a fanboy of the old chief and adhere to William Hubbs Rehnquist famous quotation 'no judge ever complained that a brief was too short'.
If she were the Justice who spoke the least, WaPo would no doubt fawn over her meditative pensiveness.
Speaking little is characteristic of the newest judge on the bench.
Naturally, it would be unusual for the newest member of any professional organization to do the most talking, be it the newest partner at a law firm, the newest member of Congress, or the newest member of a sports team. The "new guy" tends to want a firm grasp on how things are done before diving in.
For example, during oral arguments in one case last week, Justice Jackson interrupted one attorney's rebuttal. The Justices rarely (if ever) do this, so Chief Justice Roberts quietly said, "Counsel will have an additional minute for rebuttal", perhaps a mild, indirect admonishment.
Man, they sure do seem like inconsistent tools in your made up counter factual!
That's because they act like inconsistent tools in the factual case of "verbose leftist good, verbose conservative bad".
Then criticize that, no need to make stuff up to get angry at.
Though I didn’t think Gorsuch came off badly in the OP excerpt.
Compare and contrast: Gorsuch was "aggressive and somewhat long-winded"; but Jackson was "venturesome" and "persistent".
This was criticized earlier -- as usual double standards by these Dem party operatives with bylines.
Yeah, I read the OP. That stuff is in the eye of the beholder. And I don’t think being an aggressive questioner is negative. And long winded is also pretty mild with Breyer still in the Court.
So do I have it right that the reality based criticism had already been made so yiu believe it’s time to start making stuff up to criticize?
As usual, you have it solidly wrong. Those words have connotations, and those connotations don't disappear because of some other justice who wasn't even mentioned in comparison.
No, my point is that these are opinions.
Maybe to me Gorsuch is aggressive and long winded, and Jackson is incisive. Would that be due to my partisan bias? Maybe, maybe not.
There is not an established double standard in these two subjective characterizations of new Justices speaking a lot as the say different things in different cases.
This seems like a pretty inconsequential thing to be discussing and commenting upon. Talkativeness could just be nerves. Or, a sign that someone is trying to come up to speed as quickly as possible. In either case, I’d certainly cut them some slack. Not everything deserves to be placed under the microscope.
On the other hand, it’s a whole lot better than discussing something as truly irrelevant as the shade of one’s skin or one’s sex. That list of human attributes is as important to the job of being an associate judge as one’s hat size and shoe size. It’s not that I mind my liberal brethren are always wanting to make distinctions between people, I just wish they chose distinctions that made a difference.
Like what football team one favors.
It is very likely that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson will be in the minority in many cases before the court. I will suggest that by her questioning she will be making her case to the public. Few people will read her dissents, but her questioning is likely to get public attention. It may or may not be an effective strategy to make her case to the public. Time will tell.
Oral arguments are a poor platform for making arguments. We cite written dissents decades later, but have largely lost the oral arguments that preceded the decisions. Plus, a justice isn't supposed to be an advocate for either side.
If we know where Justices are going to come down, asking them to playact about it is kinda silly.
I also don’t see why oral argument is a bad platform. Redundant perhaps, but I know I respond to verbal points more than written.
To be clear, I meant that oral argument is a poor platform for justices to make arguments, which was how M4e cast the topic. They should be eliciting arguments from the counsel before then. After that, they make internal arguments in chambers, and eventually make their arguments about the case in written judgment.
I think you underestimate how much there is a public audience for oral argument.
And that is my point. The Justice's question is likely to come up in the nightly news or a newspaper. When the case is decided few members of the public will actually go read any of the opinions.
I think you overestimate how much there is a public audience for oral arguments.
Only recently have there been any way to hear (and see) oral arguments but attending them in person. Even now it is only possible to hear them without attending them in person. I would bet dollars to donuts that those listening to those radio broadcasts are too small to measure.
While there is some merit in saying the MSM coverage of oral arguments reaches the largest number of people I am of the opinion that when one sees a headline on an internet news feed or printed media it will be ignored unless the person is interested in self confirmation and will fail to change any minds. As for the public reading any actual opinions it is fools errand to think the general public is doing that.
Appellate courts don't really need oral advocacy at all, and many countries' constitutional courts do without it wholly or partly. But of course if your "court" is going to act like a 3rd house of the legislature, they could at least pretend to deliberate just like the other two houses do.
Maybe PBJ thought she was appointed to the View rather than the SC.
She should have stopped just before "Progressive Originalism", as stupid a coinage as my life has experienced
Jackson's view of the 14th Amendment is likely to come into play in at least two more cases this term, including whether to end affirmative action in college admissions ...
Now everyone but her and the willfully blind will see that the endgame here is forcing HBUC to admit non-blacks and to admit in theory that an all-Black school is INFERIOR.
If you're referring to Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College as your affirmative action case, Justice Jackson has already announced she's recusing herself from that. (Also includes University of North Carolina, by consolidation; oral arguments scheduled for Oct. 31.)
Justice Jackson recused herself from the Harvard case only: she will still hear the UNC case (and for that reason, the cases were un-consolidated, although they are both scheduled for argument in 2 weeks).
Unlike Justice Thomas, Jackson appears blissfully unaware of the old adage, 'better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.'
Media treatment of Jackson vs. Gorsuch flips the usual disparate treatment of sexes. Conventionally, an aggressively talking man is assertive or confident and a similarly situated woman is a bitch or a nag.
(Justice Elena Kagan was in third place, indicating that while the court's three liberals may be outvoted in many cases this term, they are not going to be outargued.)
Verbosity doesn't constitute an argument.
This is silly. You may disagree with Justice Jackson, and she might be more effective if she said less. But she definitely came in to her arguments well prepared.