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.
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.