One of my idiosyncratic hobbyhorses is the argument that while there are many reasons to criticize Clarence Thomas, his famous silence at oral argument isn't one of them. So I was happy to see Dahlia Lithwick at Slate express a similar view. As Orin Kerr also argues, how much a justice speaks at oral argument is essentially a matter of personal style. At the Supreme Court level, oral argument isn't so much about learning about arguments as attempting to persuade other justices (if you're feeling charitable) and showing off (if you're not). If justices see value in this, that's their privilege. But Thomas' view of oral argument is equally reasonable and certainly says nothing about his abilities as a justice.
--Scott Lemieux
