Clarence Thomas Breaks 10 Years of Silence at Supreme Court

johnnymac101

NES Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2013
Messages
3,213
Likes
1,231
Feedback: 25 / 0 / 0
And sounds like he is asking the right questions!

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/01/us/politics/supreme-court-clarence-thomas.html

WASHINGTON — Breaking a decade-long silence, Justice Clarence Thomas on Monday asked several questions from the Supreme Courtbench. He spoke just weeks after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, whose empty seat next to Justice Thomas’s remains draped in black.
It was hard to escape the conclusion that the absence of the voluble Justice Scalia, who had dominated Supreme Court arguments for nearly 30 years on the bench, somehow liberated Justice Thomas and allowed him to resume participating in the court’s most public activity.
Justice Thomas’s questions came in a minor case on domestic violence convictions and gun rights. He asked a series of questions about whether misdemeanor convictions can permanently suspend a constitutional right.
The questioning started as the morning’s first argument was winding down and Ilana H. Eisentein, a lawyer for the federal government, uttered a common concluding sentence. “If there are no further questions,” she said.
But there were some, including perhaps a dozen from Justice Thomas.
“Ms. Eisenstein, one question,” he started, according to a transcript released by the court. “This is a misdemeanor violation. It suspends a constitutional right. Can you give me another area where a misdemeanor violation suspends a constitutional right?”
After some back and forth, Ms. Eisenstein said she could not think of one, though she added that First Amendment rights could be affected in comparable settings.
“O.K.,” he said. “So can you think of a First Amendment suspension or a suspension of a First Amendment right that is permanent?”
Here again, Ms. Eisenstein offered a concession. “Your Honor,” she said, “it’s not necessarily permanent as to the individual, but it may be permanent as to a particular harm.”
The barrage of sharp, pointed questions continued, with Justice Thomas seeming to have the better of several of the exchanges.
Justice Thomas last asked a question on Feb. 22, 2006, in a death penalty case. He spoke a total of 11 times earlier in that term and in the previous one.
He has offered shifting reasons for his 10 years of silence. In his 2007 memoir, “My Grandfather’s Son,” he wrote that he had never asked questions in college or law school and that he had been intimidated by some of his fellow students.
He has also said he is self-conscious about the way he speaks, partly because he had been teased about the dialect he grew up speaking in rural Georgia.
In Monday’s second argument, on judicial recusals, Justice Thomas was again quiet.
 
aren't you suppose to have all your rights restored once you serve your time no matter what the crime? I mean once you pay your debt to society aren't you supposed to be even again?
 
In the unlikely event SCOTUS rules that misdemeanors can not render one a PP, it will make for some interesting Comm2A work in MA.
 
Holy crap, Justice Thomas really let the genie out of the bottle here.

At the rate he is going, lots of PP (Prohibited People) in Mass are going to get their gun rights restored.
 
Holy crap, Justice Thomas really let the genie out of the bottle here.

At the rate he is going, lots of PP (Prohibited People) in Mass are going to get their gun rights restored.

MA is still a "may issue" state. All the licensing officer has to do is say they don't think you're a suitable person, and that's the end of that. Particularly in a case like that where the LO can bring up specific details as to why they don't think you're suitable, it would be a very steep uphill battle to appeal that one.
 
MA is still a "may issue" state. All the licensing officer has to do is say they don't think you're a suitable person, and that's the end of that. Particularly in a case like that where the LO can bring up specific details as to why they don't think you're suitable, it would be a very steep uphill battle to appeal that one.

Like Lowell and their essay requirement? No essay = no rights? I hope Lowell CoP and his LO are sued to the point where Lowell fires their pathetic asses...
 
I would give it 3 months before DUI/OUI is a felony retroactivly

You can't go back legally and upgrade a previous conviction. That said, a first offense DUI in MA, if convicted, although it labeled as a misdemeanor, it might as well be a felony in terms of the repercussions. MA relabeling the laws would only remove some of the dishonesty embedded in 2.5 yr max misdemeanors.

-Mike
 
Holy crap, Justice Thomas really let the genie out of the bottle here.

At the rate he is going, lots of PP (Prohibited People) in Mass are going to get their gun rights restored.

Hardly. Thomas is one of the eight sitting Justices right now. The other seven get to vote too.

I think the best case scenario is that the Court deadlocks 4-4 and doesn't issue an opinion. That would have the effect of keeping the law as it is now, but another appeal could be heard when there is a full bench. That would require Justice Kennedy to vote with the three conservative judges. The worst case scenario is that Kennedy votes with the four liberal Justices and the precedent is now set.

Less likely is that Kennedy and Kagan vote with the conservative block. That would overturn the current law. That all depends on whether or not Kagan sticks with the rigid approach to interpreting the Constitution that Scalia reportedly instilled in her. If she follows the law, unlike the "Wise Latina" that "feels" the law, we might win the case.

I'm not holding my breath.
 
From the Fox News article and the most horrifying part of the piece:

During the first 45 minutes of the argument, most of the justices appeared to favor the government's position that even reckless acts of domestic assault fall under the law. Thomas did not pose questions to Virginia Villa, the lawyer arguing on behalf of the two men.

But Thomas peppered Eisenstein with several questions about Second Amendment gun rights, a topic no other justice had asked about. He noted that the law allows someone convicted of a misdemeanor assault charge to get a lifetime ban on possessing a gun "which at least as of now results in suspension of a constitutional right."

"The suspension is not directly related to the use of a weapon?" Thomas asked.

So, this went on for 45 minutes and NOT ONE justice (of the seven) said a WORD about 2A until Thomas spoke up?!?! WOW! We are fu(ked!!
 
From the Fox News article and the most horrifying part of the piece:



So, this went on for 45 minutes and NOT ONE justice (of the seven) said a WORD about 2A until Thomas spoke up?!?! WOW! We are fu(ked!!


I see things this way. If we can ban people from exercising rights, then we can ban any right. Why give PP just loss of 2nd amendment, why not make it illegal to petition the government to restore their rights, or make it illegal to run for office, or have no notion of privacy. The whole idea of pre-crime turns out justice system upside down, where innocent until proven guilty is no longer the issue.
 
Different in a significant manner because of lengthy discussion over how it is/could be linked to other tghts specifically 1A which is somewhat nearer and dearer to her......my prediction is that if it is ignored then we will see a state pass a law to push the issue.....some misdemeanor that results in loss of 1A and off to SCOTUS we go
You mean like prohibiting someone from attending a mosque for life if they are convicted of aiding Islamic terrorists?
 
In the unlikely event SCOTUS rules that misdemeanors can not render one a PP, it will make for some interesting Comm2A work in MA.
It would be an earth shattering game changer given the Commonwealth's over criminalization of minor offenses and the broad scope of offenses that make one a prohibited person.
Clarence Thomas is even more of a Constitutionalist than Scalia was. Very sharp Justice.
Scalia was a strong adherent to the doctrine of stare decisis. Thomas is not and is much more open to overturning past decisions that don't fit with his view of the Constitutions. Thomas's concurring opining in McDonald is a great case in point.
 
Wow.....that would be a whopper of a case......certainly a three ring circus
Considering that such an order would include in-prison services and chaplain visits, yes.

Another interesting case would be requiring any prison chaplain to denounce all violence in the name of his/her faith as a requirement to visit inmates.

It would be an earth shattering game changer given the Commonwealth's over criminalization of minor offenses and the broad scope of offenses that make one a prohibited person.
It probably ain't going to happen, but we can dream.

The misdafelony issue would make it complicated, as we would not be arguing "misdemeanors are not prohibitive", but either "these offenses, while felonies under 18USC922g do not rise to the level to make one a PP" or "the 18USC922g definition of felony is wrong".
 
Last edited:
I see things this way. If we can ban people from exercising rights, then we can ban any right. Why give PP just loss of 2nd amendment, why not make it illegal to petition the government to restore their rights, or make it illegal to run for office, or have no notion of privacy. The whole idea of pre-crime turns out justice system upside down, where innocent until proven guilty is no longer the issue.

Pre-crime? I know nothing of pre-crime. What we are have are "common sense" lawrs to prevent crimes "for the children" of course [rolleyes]

All sarcasm aside you are 100% accurate. IMO Drunk Driving laws and Texting while driving laws are excellent examples of pre-crime. We should just hire those three chicks laying in a pool instead of this broad brush approach we use now!
 
Back
Top Bottom