[chimeracoder]

> Another fun fact: Clarence Thomas has only asked 1 question during oral arguments in something like 10 years.

For context: Justice Thomas has explained that's because, based on his experience as a lawyer prior to being a judge, he always found it irritating when a judge would interrupt the lawyer, interfering with their ability to present their arguments in a linear fashion.

The oral arguments are also a lot less significant than people think. When justices ask questions, they're used more for signaling than anything else, because they're already briefed on the case beforehand.

[SilasX]

That doesn't sound like a good reason. Linear, polished presentations of arguments are for briefs. Oral arguments are for probing the cracks in the rhetorical armor. One should not be using the limited time to help a lawyer recite what's on a page.

[chimeracoder]

> Oral arguments are for probing the cracks in the rhetorical armor.

They're not, and as pointed out below, even Rehnquist stated as much.

For SCOTUS, oral arguments are a formality. That doesn't mean they're not valuable, but their value comes from formalizing the arguments for thr record, because by that point, most of the interrogation (both literal and figurative) of the arguments has already been done.

[wahern]

The OP misrepresents Rehnquist's opinion. See my reply with quote and citation.