tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6818410926770515168.post2715955722954369598..comments2023-07-31T05:39:10.524-05:00Comments on Redeeming Law: Disgraceful Denial of Oral Argument?: Toobin v. Thomas, ____ U.S. ____ (2014) Mike Schutthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10954783205857823337noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6818410926770515168.post-39652453461763416942014-02-22T15:18:06.323-06:002014-02-22T15:18:06.323-06:00Michael C. McConnell wrote an excellent end-of-the...Michael C. McConnell wrote an excellent end-of-the-year summary of the 2013 term of SCOTUS in First Things. You can read it here: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2013/10/2013-supreme-court-roundup<br /><br />As McConnell goes on to demonstrate, "The United States Supreme Court has two personalities. In the vast majority of cases on its docket, those involving criminal law, business regulation, statutory interpretation, freedom of speech, procedure, jurisdiction, and other technical but important legal questions, the Supreme Court acts like a court of law--a good one."<br /><br />On the other hand, "there are the hot-button ideological cases. ... In these cases, the Court seems to lose its bearings. The justices split into predictable warring camps ....The opinions in these cases are often failures of legal craft. Passion 'not law' tends to govern outcomes."<br /><br />Toobin, for all his surface intelligence, can't see outside his ideological box. It's absurd to attack Justice Thomas for such a non-issue as not asking questions during oral argument. His opinions--which is what counts for the rule of law--speak for themselves but apparently Toobin doesn't want to do the hard work of interacting with Thomas's reasoning.pryorthoughtshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18077521279953292684noreply@blogger.com