Its now been over 5 years since Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas ask asked a question or uttered a word during oral arguments before the Supreme Court. Five years without enough curiosity to ask a single question. Thomas just sits there and behaves like the oral arguments are a tedious preliminary to when he gets to be a decider.
Thomas' 5 years of silence considered so unusual the press in the U.K. is running stories about what a circus the U.S. Supreme Court has become.
Silence in the Supreme Court: Clarence Thomas hits five-year record without speaking during oral arguments
He is the judge who makes all the headlines without saying a single word.
Clarence Thomas, 62, has now passed the five-year mark without asking any questions during legal arguments at the Supreme Court.
What makes this even more remarkable is that no Supreme Court Justice has managed a single term - let alone five - without asking a question for at least 40 years.
He said he goes into oral argument sessions knowing his decision so he does not need to ask questions.
The last time Justice Thomas spoke spontaneously during a discussion between justices and lawyers was in a death penalty case in February 2006.
I somehow doubt that Justice Thomas is so knowledgeable and brilliant that he never needs to ask a probing question in any of the many cases that come before the Supreme Court.
From the Denver Post:
Clarence Thomas' shut mouth doesn't make sense
But by staying silent, Thomas is surely giving up potential influence. (This is fine by me because the less sway he has, the freer the rest of us are from his cramped view of the law.)
It also makes him look weird.
"What's wrong with him," a high school teacher asked one of her co-workers, a woman who had known Thomas in childhood, during a school trip to the high court, according to the 2007 book "Supreme Discomfort: The Divided Soul of Clarence Thomas." Why Thomas so easily cedes some of the power that comes with his position remains something of a mystery. His explanations, offered up in public appearances, vary. They include:
• His Geechee accent (also known as Gullah, rooted among some African-Americans from the southeastern U.S. coast) made him self-conscious as a poor child from Pin Point, Ga. And as a high schooler at a virtually all-white seminary outside the city, he got into the habit of not speaking.
• He thinks it's counterproductive to interrupt lawyers as they're making their points.
• He learns more by listening than talking.
• Other justices usually ask the questions he wants answered, anyway.
• He thinks there's too much chatter from the bench already.
It isn't because Thomas doesn't see the persuasive power of questions asked by the other Justices, he says he does:
Others have said that live, oral arguments aren't important because the lawyers have already laid out their positions on paper. But that's not why Thomas appears disengaged.
"You can win or lose your case at an argument," Thomas told the Arkansas Bar Association in 1998, according to "Supreme Discomfort," by Kevin Merida and Michael A. Fletcher.
For whatever reason Thomas isn't fully engaged in every phase of the cases that come before him. Then there's the even bigger questions about Clarence Thomas' ethical lapses and misconduct.
This arrived in my inbox today from Common Cause:
Dear Eric,
This week marks the five-year anniversary of the last time Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas spoke during an oral argument.
While Justice Thomas doesn't seem to have many questions for those who come before the Court, we have a few for him, such as:
• What is his relationship with Charles and David Koch? How many of their secretive political strategy sessions has he attended, and what did he do there?
• Do the ties between his wife's group, Liberty Central, and Koch Industries create a conflict of interest for him, or at least an appearance of bias?
• Why did he stop reporting his wife's income on his financial disclosure forms between 2003 and 2009?
• What criteria would require a Supreme Court justice to recuse him or herself from a case?
• Should the Code of Judicial Conduct apply to Supreme Court justices?
What are your questions for Justice Thomas? Submit them now!
We'll pass them on to the Supreme Court, and publish some of our favorites on our blog.
As you know, Common Cause has been leading the charge a formal investigation into Justices Thomas' and Scalia's ties to Koch Industries, and has launched a campaign to strengthen ethical standards for Supreme Court justices.
We believe the American people have a right to open, honest and accountable government -- and that includes the justices who serve on the Supreme Court.
That's why we're calling on the Department of Justice to look into Scalia and Thomas' involvement with Koch Industries, the second largest privately held company in the U.S., and a major player in political campaigns and in the Tea Party. Reports indicate that the Koch brothers have spent millions to influence elections, and regularly host secret strategy sessions with corporate leaders and political activists.
Clarence's former lover has a new tell all book out: McEwen sees justice in tell-all
Pressure to do something about the Supreme Court's and Justice Thomas' lack of ethics is building.
Professors ask Congress for an ethics code for Supreme Court
A group of more than a hundred law professors from around the country has asked Congress to extend an ethical code of conduct to the Supreme Court for the first time and clarify when individual justices should step away from specific legal cases.
The group's appeal on Wednesday in a letter to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees comes after recent controversies involving travel and appearances at political events by several Supreme Court justices, including Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. Rep. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said he plans to introduce legislation that addresses the issue.
Thomas and Scalia have been criticized by a public interest group for attending private political meetings sponsored in January 2007 and 2008 by David and Charles Koch, conservative billionaires who made large contributions during last year's election and have financially backed the tea party movement.
The Supreme Court is long overdue for a Code of Ethics as Justice Thomas' questionable behavior has highlighted. Congress needs to act on this.