Asked at an event honoring Winston Churchill sponsored by independent Michigan school Hillsdale College if he would talk more from the bench to "give us relief" from the other chatty judges, Thomas said, "I don't think it's my job to give you relief."
http://www.usnews.com/...
Thomas doesn't think questions from the bench are suitable.
There's a reason why Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas doesn't talk much from the bench: He thinks judges should be seen and not heard.
"My colleagues should shut up!" he says. In a rare scolding of his fellow judges, Thomas Wednesday night took off after those who ask questions and debate cases out loud during oral arguments while defending his own, oft-criticized, silent treatment.
He has an interesting analogy he mentions to illustrate the point, and I believe, indicative of the way he thinks.
"Suppose you're undergoing something very serious like surgery and the doctors started a practice of conducting seminars while in the operating room, debating each other about certain procedures and whether or not this procedure is this way or that way. You really didn't go in there to have a debate about gallbladder surgery. You actually went in to have a procedure done."
Though I'm neither a Lawyer nor a Doctor, I think Thomas misses the point, which is the issue of this diary - that a sitting Supreme Court Justice could have such parochial, uncurious thinking.
In the medical setting, a surgeon who is contemplating a difficult procedure consults with other doctors, anesthetists, specialists, to get input into how this surgery will impact the patient, whether the proposed approach is outside the boundaries of accepted practice, whether it would be groundbreaking, whether it would be prudent, whether there are possible unanticipated consequences. It is a private meeting in the medical profession, but the intent is to get input from other professionals to make sure that all relevant input is obtained, that all possible concerns are voiced, with the understanding that, no matter how skilled the particular surgeon is in his craft, there are other professionals who know things he does not (like maybe the anesthesist, or the staff pathologist) that need to be in the mix.
For Thomas, the exercise of having the other professionals (lawyers presenting confirming or opposing views, who may be much more expert in their area of law then he is) present their case should be one sided, with the court hearing the presentations, but not questioning the presenters on their point of law, their thought process, or their potential biases. In other words, the Justices are all-seeing, all-knowledgable, and don't need to go through a dialog to expose either novel approaches to law or poorly-formed arguements. A more closed-mind approach I cannot imagine.
I believe that Thomas confuses the consultative effort with the deliberative effort. The public hearing is the consultative stage, where there is a give and take and intelligent lawyers can bring to the attention of the Supreme court issues they may not have considered on their own. The Deliberative stage for the court is where they gather togeather and actually make law - it's where surgery happens on the law.
So what is the meaning of the deliberative stage in the court for Thomas? Is it where you just send the patient out into the world and see what happens? Too bad there isn't malpractice law for Supreme Court Justices where they have to take responsibiliy for poorly thought decisions that have undesirable social consequences that were wholly expected. Of course, if the court has a political agenda, all bets are off.
"Thomas said that once the cases get to the Supreme Court, there are no surprises left. "This is not Perry Mason."
Even Perry Mason didn't know everything....