The justices have already read a ton of briefs and deeply understand both sides of the case before oral arguments, it's not the first time they're hearing anything.

Isn't that just how the Supreme Court works though (and I think appeals courts in general)? I thought it was literally just judges/justices questioning lawyers, not witnesses or the defendant on the stand or something.

Maybe I'm just inferring that from how I've seen appeals courts portrayed on TV shows though; I guess I haven't really ever actually been in person to any appeal.

As I've heard it, Thomas' position was that it was the attorneys' responsibility to make the best, most complete case they can. And then the justices' responsibility to debate that case against the law and render a verdict.

Or, in other words, if an attorney makes a bad argument, or leaves an argument unsaid, that's their problem. It shouldn't be the justices' task to score points with their colleagues by guiding attorneys to different lines of thought.

But, obviously other justices feel differently. Hence the diversity of behavior! Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Right, but my point was that a standard (i.e. non-appeal) usually has lawyers questioning witnesses (or the defendant themself); they're explicitly not allowed to just pontificate without asking a question outside of the opening and closing statements. My understanding of an appeals trial was that there was no witness testimony, just lawyers talking to judges and vice-versa. If my understanding is correct, that means that without judges asking questions, an appeal would just consist of each lawyer essentially making a speech and then sitting down without any ability for discussion. This strikes me as a bit odd, which is why I'm wondering if I'm missing something. If I'm not, I would think Thomas' position is extraordinarily unorthodox, to the point that I wouldn't be surprised if no other appeals judge in the country shared it. I'm not sure how easy it would be to check that, but at the very least, has any other Supreme Court justice in the history of the United States every held that view?

If there is a risk of misunderstanding, it's good to confirm that the attorney is saying what the Justice thinks they are saying, before writing a scathing opinion excoriating the bad argument.

I strongly disagree. If you're a judge listening closely to a lawyer present their case, your head should be filling with questions for their arguments.

The Lawyers don't really present their case in oral arguments. The whole process is 1 hour, and each party involved is given 2 minutes to summarize their position.

This comment betrays that you don't really understand how the legal process works. There's often hundreds and hundreds of pages of briefs that go along with every case, and the oral argument is usually not even that relevant; it's mostly a formality in many cases. It's what gets the headlines, but the "meat" of the case is hardly the oral argument.

Agreed. I would waive oral arguments at practically every opportunity, except that I feel like the judges usually ignore all the written motions and decide based on who is wearing the nicest bow tie during oral arguments.