Originally Posted by Jenson71
Eight other justices think oral arguments are useful. Only Thomas will agree with you. I was able to talk to appellate judges in Iowa, and they all find oral arguments useful as well.
I suspect that, aside from the argument itself being interesting and fun for them, those 8 justices are more interested in their place in history and their legacy, which requires vigorous thoughtful participation in oral arguments. They are only useful for the public, which is probably good enough to keep them. I would be annoyed if they were done away with, but the 60 minute oral argument is not going to sway a justice where hundreds of pages of briefs and that justice's dozens or hundreds of hours of attention on the issue failed to do so.