Justice Ginsburg falls asleep during oral arguments
The subject matter was extremely technical, and near the end of the argument Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dozed in her chair. Justices David Souter and Samuel Alito, who flank the 72-year-old, looked at her but did not give her a nudge. . . .
By the way, I think that Ted Cruz, who argued the redistricting case for Texas, won.
4 Comments:
Actually, while Justice Scalia is quite active typically, Justice Thomas is (in)famous for falling asleep during arguments - and he's the youngest Justice! Looks like both left and right could benefit from a clerk making the Justices a nice pot of coffee before arguments... though I suppose they would then need a bathroom break....
I did a fast google search ("Clarence THomas" sleep OR snoozes) and I could not find anything on your claim.
Just in case any lefties out there are still in denial of the mainstream media’s leftist bias….consider that ABCnews.com has as it’s top 3 political headlines…
Bush Arrives in Pakistan; Security Heavy
Analysis: Video Shows Leaders’ Dissonance
Dems Call Ports Acquisition a ‘Backroom Deal’
Nowhere do you see…SUPREME COURT JUSTICE ASLEEP DURING HEARING.
I couldn’t even find the story on their website.. but in the google search for “ruth bader ginsberg falls asleep” the abc news link reads….A courtroom artist says he caught Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg falling asleep during a case. But court watchers say she’s not the first to doze …
you see how they do that???????? Anything, even mildly embarrassing to one of their fellow lefties, gets turned into.. “yeah, but she’s not the only one” or “Everyone lies about sex” or “I know you are, but what am I?”
Liberals and the mainstream media are pathetic..and are also both endangered species.
Thomas, J isn't infamous for falling asleep during oral arguments--I don't think he's ever done that. He's infamous for never asking questions (I think he's asked fewer than 5 his entire career).
That said, while Ginsburg's behaviour certainly was rude, I question the need for oral arguments: surely written pleadings are better able to make precise statements of fact and law, whereas oral arguments run the risk of leading to "if we vote this way won't that result in..." style questions that should have little to no place when interpreting a statute or constitution.
-Aly
Post a Comment
<< Home