Ruth Bader Ginsburg doesn't give a shit

[Marley23]

@Cliffy

And the justices, as much as I think various of them get things wrong, are always prepared.

Although they still couldn’t take Batman.

[Gadarene]

Cliffy:

(and I’ve also thought it isn’t a big deal every time I’ve heard about Thomas dozing off, and boy howdy have I lost count)

Maybe it’s just a GULC thing.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@treis

I call foul on the cite. Its an opinion piece, not a news report. It also cites Bloomberg news, which has no mention of Ginsburg sleeping in its article about the case:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=at6rujt10U7s&refer=us

Here is the quote from your link:

The court heard arguments in a rare afternoon session, completing four hours of hearings on the day. The long day took a toll on Ginsburg, who nodded off for about 15 minutes as the argument wound down. Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said Ginsburg, who recently returned from a trip to South Africa, had no comment.

Sounds like this may be an anomoly.

(furt quotes an AP article as well. )

furt: That Thomas rarely participates in oral argument is well known – I’ve never seen it disputed. The bit about his nodding off is another matter, an allegation that has not reached this non-lawyer. (I’m not saying I’m surprised: this is inside the beltway gossip we’re talking about.)

[crowmanyclouds]

@Marley23

…But then, how are lawyers supposed to feel?

Lawyers feel? :dubious:

CMC fnord

[Bricker]

The world will be a better place when Ginsburg retires. Her jurisprudence is anathema to me. I would snipe at her for nearly anything; I can’t stand her.

That said… no big deal. It happens, especially when you’ve crossed into your seventies. She is, by all accounts, still clearly and cogently applying her twisted variety of judicial activism to her work – as much as she ever has, anyway. A snooze during oral argument is simply not a surprise, nor can it reasonably be said to show a dereliction of her principal job. Show me some evidence she’s not crafting her own opinions based on the pleadings, and I’ll join the outraged howls.

But this is nothing.

[David_Simmons]

@Measure for Measure

Ronald Reagan would nap at Cabinet meetings. They probably weren’t very interesting anyway.

And I never understood that. The boss never need sit in a boring meeting with subordinates.

I was once asked by my boss to give our standard briefing on his pet project to a visiting admiral. The project was out of the admiral’s sphere of operations and after about 5 minutes he said that he was sure it was all very interesting but his schedule was tight and he didn’t want any more.

[Derleth]

You guys should stop playing with me like this. I thought Ginsburg hopped onto the table and did a strip tease, downed a pint of Jack from a hip flask, and ‘initiated’ Alito with a lap-dance.

So she snoozed a bit. Big deal. Judges have flogged the dolphin during trials before, and there was less bickering about it. We’re all lucky she didn’t favor the room with a massive fart.

@Marley23

I have to admit that if I was a lawyer arguing my first case before the Supreme Court and some of the Justices nodded off, I’d feel horrible. But then, how are lawyers supposed to feel?

On the off chance you were serious: There’s a difference between talking to someone face-to-face and getting your arguments into a transcript while a panel of judges observes, possibly asks questions, and makes sure procedural rules are followed. It’s true that trial lawyers who have to perform in front of a jury need to be scintillating orators, but that isn’t (or shouldn’t) be true for lawyers who appear before the trained legal minds on the Supreme Court. Law, knowledge, and skill should count for more in that venue, and all of those things are preserved fully in a transcript.

[Marley23]

It was mostly a setup for the “how are lawyers supposed to feel?” line. But if a napping Justice doesn’t put added pressure on the lawyers addressing the court, then great.

[Updike]

@Bricker

A snooze during oral argument is simply not a surprise, nor can it reasonably be said to show a dereliction of her principal job.

Really? Because I can’t think of a single job where sleeping wouldn’t be considered a dereliction of duty.

[Marley23]

@Updike

Really? Because I can’t think of a single job where sleeping wouldn’t be considered a dereliction of duty.

Mattress tester. (Jeez, some people don’t even try to construct an argument.)

Seriously, Updike, if we’ve got lawyers here saying this is not big deal, it’s be pretty hard to make a big deal out of it.

[treis]

@Measure for Measure

Here is the quote from your link:Sounds like this may be an anomoly.

(furt quotes an AP article as well. )

furt: That Thomas rarely participates in oral argument is well known – I’ve never seen it disputed. The bit about his nodding off is another matter, an allegation that has not reached this non-lawyer. (I’m not saying I’m surprised: this is inside the beltway gossip we’re talking about.)

Ack how the heck did I miss that? My apologies.

[black_rabbit]

@Gadarene

I’ve provided my cite. If anecdotal evidence and personal observation of something that’s widely known in the Washington legal community isn’t good enough for you, then that’s fine. I don’t care enough about your opinion one way or the other to do the scutwork to track something down online.

Not that I care about his opinion, but I’d heard it too, and I’m not even a lawyer.

A quick google reveals the following:

After the first couple of minutes of my argument, I looked over in the direction of Justice Clarence Thomas. He was sleeping. At first I thought he was just sitting with his eyes closed, but then I actually saw him jerking and twitching like people do when they are asleep…

…It is almost like a joke in the legal community, anytime anybody talks about an argument in the Supreme Court the question might come up about whether Clarence was awake or not.

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/firststone/sleeping_thomas/

In the past I’ve seen Justice Clarence Thomas appear to be napping during oral argument. The same for Justice Stephen Breyer.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/orderinthecourt/2006/03/yesterday_was_k.html

Most of the Justices, especially Scalia and Breyer, relished the aggressive dynamic of oral argument and the opportunity to inject humor into the proceedings. On the other hand, Justice Clarence Thomas remained silent throughout the entire hour, at one point appearing to fall asleep.

Google Cache

I’ll be the first to admit that a bunch of blogs do not a cite make, but the occasion is not entirely unheard of. Especially since the dude almost never asks any questions.

[furt]

It seems I’m due for a response here.

1. It seems the third option in the OP is the case; I’m naive about common behavior among jurists.

2. Nevertheless, Clarence Thomas is a dick. Not asking questions is one thing, but my opinion remains that respect for the institution should keep them awake. If they can’t stay awake, stay home and go by the written briefs.

[Shodan]

Maybe she’ll fall asleep during some death penalty appeal, and then we can all shrug our shoulders and give the defendent the needle.

Regards,
Shodan

[Gadarene]

Maybe she’ll fall asleep during some death penalty appeal, and then we can all shrug our shoulders and give the defendent the needle.

You been following the thread at all there, S-man?

[Hamlet]

@furt

Not asking questions is one thing, but my opinion remains that respect for the institution should keep them awake. If they can’t stay awake, stay home and go by the written briefs.

I agree. Whether it’s Ginsberg, Thomas, or Breyer, napping during oral arguments is unprofessional, shows poor judgment, and is disrespectful of the importance of their job.

[El_Cid_Viscoso]

I recall when I was 18 and about to go back to university, I nodded off during a sermon. Does that make me any less of a Christian?

[Thudlow_Boink]

@El Cid Viscoso

I recall when I was 18 and about to go back to university, I nodded off during a sermon. Does that make me any less of a Christian?

That depends—how much were you being paid to listen to sermons? And whose fate were you going to decide afterwards?

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Thudlow Boink

And whose fate were you going to decide afterwards?

That’s easy - his own.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Thudlow Boink

That depends—how much were you being paid to listen to sermons? And whose fate were you going to decide afterwards?

Have you read the part of this thread where it was revealed that the justices are not required to listen to oral arguments. They don’t have to present at all, much less awake. Their decisions are based primarily on the written briefs, not oral arguments and the oral arguments are transcribed anyway. A little snooze during a proceeding which they are not required to participate is not going to affect how they rule (and who are we kidding, they all know how they’re going to rule before they ever hear a word of oral argument. They probably know how they’re going to rule before they even read the briefs).