Sorry, I simply don't know what point you are making. If you are trying to propose some alternative system that is one thing. I'm merely clarifying that your statement does not make sense in the context of the system we already have. It is not meant to be a red herring. The reason that adage about "don't ask questions..." even exists among trial lawyers is because of the state's great power over its own citizens (and others it has authority over).

Now I guess maybe what you are saying is that the state shouldn't have these powers, and therefore we should be able to more freely ask and answer questions in courts and congress, then fine. But I'm not sure I agree with that or I want to engage with whatever you proposed alternative is. I think simply it doesn't comport to equate some kind "hostility to inquisitive and curious reasoning" to the adage, because the point is that the courts are not a venue for such a thing.

Now if you think they should be, that is a separate argument. I don't see how any institution that has the power to deprive people of their liberty could ever be a venue for "inquisitive and curious reasoning". Which is why I said the courts and congress are not the universities. In fact, there is very good historical literature that elucidates the role of the university as something of a sovereign entity in the Western tradition given this almost definitional tension with the institutions of the state.

In reading the subtext in your comment, I think we may agree in more than a few areas, but we are just coming at this from slightly different directions. Again, the adage came up with respect to Cotton's performance as an examiner in the context where people in his position have great power to damage those sitting before him.

It's an adversarial system by design. If you want to redesign it fine, but the adage makes sense given this is the system. It applies to Cotton in this case as well, even if he is the state here, because naturally even though there will not be any real consequences for him, he still falls under the same risks re the success of making an argument in this kind of venue if you ask a question without considering the answer you will be eliciting. I also don't really think him asking essentially the same question about his citizenship multiple times is a species of "inquisitive and curious reasoning" anyway. So while I think I may sympathize with your general notions I'm not sure I really know what you are getting at.