Justice Thomas doesn't like oral argument

A few weeks ago I posted about how, if early indications proved true, the addition of Justice Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court could result in more questions being asked during oral argument. But Justice Clarence Thomas doesn't like that possibility one bit. During a speech at the University of Alabama School of Law, Thomas apparently criticized his brethren (although none by name) for blabbing too much during lawyers' "time before the court" (there's a subtle shout-out to my friends at South Texas College of Law).

Saying that most judges make up their minds about a case by reading the parties' briefs beforehand, Thomas said, "[s]o why do you beat up on people if you already know? I don't know, because I don't beat up on 'em. I refuse to participate. I don't like it, so I don't do it."

The notoriously quiet Thomas also denied that the justices could effectively use oral argument as a means to sway each other. "All nine of us are in the same building," he said. "If we want to sway each other we know where we are. We don't need oral arguments to do that. It doesn't make any sense to me."