ShareThisSUN VALLEY, Idaho - In a candid talk, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas described the collegiality among justices, the line between his faith and the law, and his view that the court's oral arguments have devolved into a 50-question version of "Family Feud."
Thomas spoke Saturday at the Utah State Bar's 2010 summer convention, drawing a standing-room-only crowd. Thomas, who traveled west with his wife, Virginia, spoke for about 20 minutes and then spent twice that amount of time fielding audience questions.
To his Utah audience, Thomas was unexpectedly warm, funny and engaging -- a different man in person, some said, than portrayed in media reports that focus on his bench demeanor. The New York Times referred to it as the "Clarence Thomas Silence" in a March article marking the fourth anniversary of the last time Thomas asked a question during oral arguments.
Thomas, 62, defended his approach Saturday, saying oral argument was an opportunity for attorneys to tease out their case.
When he first arrived on the court, members "actually listened to lawyers," Thomas said. "We have ceased doing that. Now it's become a debate or seminar. I don't find that particularly helpful. It may be entertaining, but I am not there to entertain anybody ...
"There can be some questions to clarify things, to challenge (them), but you don't need 50 questions per case," Thomas said. "That becomes more like 'Family Feud' than oral argument."
Former President George H.W. Bush nominated Thomas to the court, where he has served as an associate justice for 19 years. During his tenure, Thomas has gained a reputation as a "textualist" who crafts opinions that hinge on the plain language of the Constitution.
Thomas said he came to the court with a view that it would be as contentious as the rest of the inside-the-Beltway world, with factions, incivility and little real work being done by the justices.
Instead, he found it to be a warm, professional and dignified place, where even the most senior justices were vitally engaged in the enterprise of judging. The court "actually is a family," he said, and the members come to love and regard each other as people, who are not defined by their opinions.
Each justice recognizes the importance of getting the decisions right, he said.
"Deciding these cases is only easy for those who have no authority to decide them," Thomas said. "For the rest of us, we don't have the luxury of impugning motives, of being cynical or being political, because one vote, one mistake, can cause significant harm and change something for quite some time to the detriment of our country."
It is "insulting" to say the court lets political pressure sway its opinions, he said. Thomas also said he thought it "could be a problem" to have judges selected through a political process.
Thomas, a Roman Catholic, said his faith is a "source of strength" but that "it would violate the oath to put my faith ahead of what the law actually says, and I don't do that."
One audience member asked Thomas about Chief Justice John Roberts' reported push for more consensus decisions.
"I would equate trying to get the members of the court to do what you want them to do with herding gnats in a hurricane," Thomas said.
Thomas, told that the last session did seem to produce more consensus opinions, drew laughter when he retorted: "That's not the way it felt during the term."
Justices do not lobby each other, he said, but one may ask a colleague to not sign an opinion until reading what he or she has written.
"Sometimes you see something in what's written that is critical in your analysis," Thomas said. And the early drafts can help change opinions, too, when an opinion that sounded good "won't write."
His favorite case: A "little train case" that raised a liability issue involving automatic connectors between rail cars.
And one he would do over? Almendarez-Torres v. United States, which in 1998 found a Sixth Amendment requirement did not apply to a sentencing enhancement based on a previous conviction. Thomas, who joined the majority in the 5-4 opinion, said he would vote the other way on the case now.
He called the confirmation process for new justices, which became politicized during the hearing for nominee Robert Bork in 1987, unnecessarily prolonged.
Thomas said his biggest concern is the Ivy League composition of the court and its lack of regional representation. The current court has five justices from the New York/New Jersey area, two from California, one from Indiana and one -- Thomas -- from Georgia.
"Does that sound like this country?" he asked.
(E-mail Salt Lake Tribune reporter Brooke Adams at brooke(at)sltrib.com.)
(Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service, www.scrippsnews.com.)
Must credit Salt Lake Tribune
