Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, speaking at 
the University of Alabama, decried what he considers as a lot of noise and conversation during hearings in front of the court. He made a statement where he said that each of them already has formed their opinion and knows how they’ve going to vote on the issue before they get into the courtroom.
The subject came up when he was discussing how he dislikes some of his colleagues, whom he didn’t name, not allowing attorneys who present their cases to make their oral arguments without interruption. He was quoted as saying “So why do you beat up on people if you already know? I don’t know, because I don’t beat up on ‘em. I refuse to participate. I don’t like it, so I don’t do it.”
And he doesn’t. At this point Justice Thomas hasn’t asked a question in nearly four years, and before that he was averaging less than 3 questions a year while court was in session. The last question he asked was on February 2, 2006.
The issue here is what ever happened to justices waiting for all the evidence to be presented before making decisions as to guilt or innocence? Actually, it’s always been the case in America. In earlier times, justices knew all the participants in a legal proceeding, so they were already apt to side, for the most part, with the person whose word they trusted, or with that person they knew best. As times have changed, with their being more people and the separation of the haves and have-nots, statistics have shown that judges tend to side more often with those that have means versus those that don’t.
The question to ask here is, if the justices have already made up their minds as to what they believe, what is the purpose of having oral arguments? If it’s because that’s just how things have always gone, meaning tradition, then it needs to go away. Think about how many cases the justices leave on the docket every year because they don’t have the time to get to everything. They could eliminate the open court proceedings, have closed door meetings if needed, and get a lot more done. As a matter of fact, Justice Thomas said this himself:
“All nine of us are in the same building,” he said. “If we want to sway each other we know where we are. We don’t need oral arguments to do that. It doesn’t make any sense to me.”
Here are some other interesting articles on decision making and the judicial system
Judge John D. Hartigan
What is oral argument
Popular Supreme Court Cases You Probably Never Heard Of
as a matter of fact he has spoken what many had it on their mind.