At least based on what has been presented to me, I don't see this as an issue of whether he ever get curious or not. Given that he is a strict constructionist, it'd make sense if he would also want to follow exactly the word and sentiment of the Court's procedures. He sees the time as for the advocates to make their case. Questions may arise, but he does not see it as the proper way to address them. It's not out of convenience or lack of curiosity, but out of ideology.

On a level, I agree with him. Advocates rarely get to present most of their prepared arguments. Questions can also reveal existing bias in the court, and be phrased in a way that creates an ideological imbalance. It also strikes me as basically rude to need advocates to write arguments if they are just going to be questioned. There should be a place for questioning, just not during prepared statements. The Court already hears very short testimony. I think Thomas would be all for a seperate phase for questions if it were officially implemented into the Court's procedures.