Clarence Thomas speaks!

[CrusaderFrank]

Clarence Thomas asked his first question in over a decade and it was a thing of beauty.

In a gun rights case, one that asks if someone involved in domestic violence should be banned from owning a gun, Thomas asked if the plaintiff could site any other examples where a misdemeanor conviction lead to surrendering a Constitutional right.

“Ms. Eisenstein, just one question,” Thomas said. “Can you give me — this is a misdemeanor violation. It suspends a constitutional right. Can you give me another area where a misdemeanor violation suspends a constitutional right?”

When Eisenstein stumbled in her response, Thomas again pointed out that the case involves a “misdemeanor violation of domestic conduct that results in a lifetime ban on possession of a gun, which, at least as of now, is still a constitutional right.”

For first time in 10 years, Justice Thomas asks questions during argument

 

[saveliberty]

With the conservative side silenced by one, Thomas will probably be more vocal.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Thomas staggered the Assistant Solicitor general with the question. It will be interesting to see how the votes shake on this creeping Fascism gun-grabbing case

 

[Searcher44]

Clarence Thomas asked his first question in over a decade and it was a thing of beauty.

In a gun rights case, one that asks if someone involved in domestic violence should be banned from owning a gun, Thomas asked if the plaintiff could site any other examples where a misdemeanor conviction lead to surrendering a Constitutional right.

“Ms. Eisenstein, just one question,” Thomas said. “Can you give me — this is a misdemeanor violation. It suspends a constitutional right. Can you give me another area where a misdemeanor violation suspends a constitutional right?”

When Eisenstein stumbled in her response, Thomas again pointed out that the case involves a “misdemeanor violation of domestic conduct that results in a lifetime ban on possession of a gun, which, at least as of now, is still a constitutional right.”

For first time in 10 years, Justice Thomas asks questions during argument

I have been one among scores who have remarked on, and ridiculed the silent sulking Thomas's 10 yrs. of habitual incuriosity while sitting on the most important bench in America. And though surprised at his sudden curiosity, the subject that woke him from his Rip Van Winkle scale slumber does not surprise me. In a domestic violence related case his question was "Can you give me another area where a misdemeanor suspends a constitutional right?” And to clarify that to an Attorney maybe momentarily struck dumb by his sudden verbosity he added “You’re saying that recklessness is sufficient to trigger a violation— misdemeanor violation of domestic conduct that results in a lifetime ban on possession of a gun, which, at least as of now, is still a constitutional right. . . . Can you think of another constitutional right that can be suspended based upon a misdemeanor violation of a state law?”
So typical of a judge who so proudly distains people, preferring his ancient dusty tomes and their archaic legalisms and minutiae to the real misery and human drama that are usually at the heart of Supreme Court cases.
Does anybody think an empathy for battered wives, who are up to six times more likely to die by gun violence at the hands of their batterers, will be reflected in his opinion on this case?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Clarence Thomas asked his first question in over a decade and it was a thing of beauty.

In a gun rights case, one that asks if someone involved in domestic violence should be banned from owning a gun, Thomas asked if the plaintiff could site any other examples where a misdemeanor conviction lead to surrendering a Constitutional right.

“Ms. Eisenstein, just one question,” Thomas said. “Can you give me — this is a misdemeanor violation. It suspends a constitutional right. Can you give me another area where a misdemeanor violation suspends a constitutional right?”

When Eisenstein stumbled in her response, Thomas again pointed out that the case involves a “misdemeanor violation of domestic conduct that results in a lifetime ban on possession of a gun, which, at least as of now, is still a constitutional right.”

For first time in 10 years, Justice Thomas asks questions during argument

I have been one among scores who have remarked on, and ridiculed the silent sulking Thomas's 10 yrs. of habitual incuriosity while sitting on the most important bench in America. And though surprised at his sudden curiosity, the subject that woke him from his Rip Van Winkle scale slumber does not surprise me. In a domestic violence related case his question was "Can you give me another area where a misdemeanor suspends a constitutional right?” And to clarify that to an Attorney maybe momentarily struck dumb by his sudden verbosity he added “You’re saying that recklessness is sufficient to trigger a violation— misdemeanor violation of domestic conduct that results in a lifetime ban on possession of a gun, which, at least as of now, is still a constitutional right. . . . Can you think of another constitutional right that can be suspended based upon a misdemeanor violation of a state law?”
So typical of a judge who so proudly distains people, preferring his ancient dusty tomes and their archaic legalisms and minutiae to the real misery and human drama that are usually at the heart of Supreme Court cases.
Does anybody think an empathy for battered wives, who are up to six times more likely to die by gun violence at the hands of their batterers, will be reflected in his opinion on this case?

Thomas's opinions brilliant and planted firmly in the bedrock of American Founding Principles and Constitutional Law, your racist snipe at him as an intellectual flyweight notwithstanding.

Thomas nailed it by asking essentially, if we have to surrender Constitutional right -- for the wives n chillun!!!!

 

[Iceweasel]

Sounds like he's stepping up to the plate with Scalia gone. Good for him.

 

[saveliberty]

Clarence Thomas asked his first question in over a decade and it was a thing of beauty.

In a gun rights case, one that asks if someone involved in domestic violence should be banned from owning a gun, Thomas asked if the plaintiff could site any other examples where a misdemeanor conviction lead to surrendering a Constitutional right.

“Ms. Eisenstein, just one question,” Thomas said. “Can you give me — this is a misdemeanor violation. It suspends a constitutional right. Can you give me another area where a misdemeanor violation suspends a constitutional right?”

When Eisenstein stumbled in her response, Thomas again pointed out that the case involves a “misdemeanor violation of domestic conduct that results in a lifetime ban on possession of a gun, which, at least as of now, is still a constitutional right.”

For first time in 10 years, Justice Thomas asks questions during argument

I have been one among scores who have remarked on, and ridiculed the silent sulking Thomas's 10 yrs. of habitual incuriosity while sitting on the most important bench in America. And though surprised at his sudden curiosity, the subject that woke him from his Rip Van Winkle scale slumber does not surprise me. In a domestic violence related case his question was "Can you give me another area where a misdemeanor suspends a constitutional right?” And to clarify that to an Attorney maybe momentarily struck dumb by his sudden verbosity he added “You’re saying that recklessness is sufficient to trigger a violation— misdemeanor violation of domestic conduct that results in a lifetime ban on possession of a gun, which, at least as of now, is still a constitutional right. . . . Can you think of another constitutional right that can be suspended based upon a misdemeanor violation of a state law?”
So typical of a judge who so proudly distains people, preferring his ancient dusty tomes and their archaic legalisms and minutiae to the real misery and human drama that are usually at the heart of Supreme Court cases.
Does anybody think an empathy for battered wives, who are up to six times more likely to die by gun violence at the hands of their batterers, will be reflected in his opinion on this case?

Domestic violence is not a misdemeanor, so your comparison is void.
Lawyers submit their briefs prior to the Supreme Court hearing. Justices can and do review them ahead of time. The Constitution does not change, so Thomas really does not need to say a word in the hearing. You are quick to dismiss rights as somehow increasing freedom, liberty and a better life.

 

[Skylar]

In fairness to Thomas, his questions were decent ones.

 

[Searcher44]

Clarence Thomas asked his first question in over a decade and it was a thing of beauty.

In a gun rights case, one that asks if someone involved in domestic violence should be banned from owning a gun, Thomas asked if the plaintiff could site any other examples where a misdemeanor conviction lead to surrendering a Constitutional right.

“Ms. Eisenstein, just one question,” Thomas said. “Can you give me — this is a misdemeanor violation. It suspends a constitutional right. Can you give me another area where a misdemeanor violation suspends a constitutional right?”

When Eisenstein stumbled in her response, Thomas again pointed out that the case involves a “misdemeanor violation of domestic conduct that results in a lifetime ban on possession of a gun, which, at least as of now, is still a constitutional right.”

For first time in 10 years, Justice Thomas asks questions during argument

I have been one among scores who have remarked on, and ridiculed the silent sulking Thomas's 10 yrs. of habitual incuriosity while sitting on the most important bench in America. And though surprised at his sudden curiosity, the subject that woke him from his Rip Van Winkle scale slumber does not surprise me. In a domestic violence related case his question was "Can you give me another area where a misdemeanor suspends a constitutional right?” And to clarify that to an Attorney maybe momentarily struck dumb by his sudden verbosity he added “You’re saying that recklessness is sufficient to trigger a violation— misdemeanor violation of domestic conduct that results in a lifetime ban on possession of a gun, which, at least as of now, is still a constitutional right. . . . Can you think of another constitutional right that can be suspended based upon a misdemeanor violation of a state law?”
So typical of a judge who so proudly distains people, preferring his ancient dusty tomes and their archaic legalisms and minutiae to the real misery and human drama that are usually at the heart of Supreme Court cases.
Does anybody think an empathy for battered wives, who are up to six times more likely to die by gun violence at the hands of their batterers, will be reflected in his opinion on this case?

Thomas's opinions brilliant and planted firmly in the bedrock of American Founding Principles and Constitutional Law, your racist snipe at him as an intellectual flyweight notwithstanding.

Thomas nailed it by asking essentially, if we have to surrender Constitutional right -- for the wives n chillun!!!!

Now hold it...hold it just a darn second, I try to remain unfazed by even the vilest
ad hominem attack, call me a ☠$%^&*ing baby f☠@#er, whatever, I'll either ignore or respond in kind just for the hell of it. However, the accusation that you unfoundedly threw out into the cybersphere, of me taking a "racist snipe" at Thomas is one I'd like a chance to defend against, but I can't seeing as though I don't have the faintest fucking idea what you're talking about. Fairness demands that you give me the right of self-defence, so please point out this "racist snipe". Thank You.

 

[Searcher44]

Clarence Thomas asked his first question in over a decade and it was a thing of beauty.

In a gun rights case, one that asks if someone involved in domestic violence should be banned from owning a gun, Thomas asked if the plaintiff could site any other examples where a misdemeanor conviction lead to surrendering a Constitutional right.

“Ms. Eisenstein, just one question,” Thomas said. “Can you give me — this is a misdemeanor violation. It suspends a constitutional right. Can you give me another area where a misdemeanor violation suspends a constitutional right?”

When Eisenstein stumbled in her response, Thomas again pointed out that the case involves a “misdemeanor violation of domestic conduct that results in a lifetime ban on possession of a gun, which, at least as of now, is still a constitutional right.”

For first time in 10 years, Justice Thomas asks questions during argument

I have been one among scores who have remarked on, and ridiculed the silent sulking Thomas's 10 yrs. of habitual incuriosity while sitting on the most important bench in America. And though surprised at his sudden curiosity, the subject that woke him from his Rip Van Winkle scale slumber does not surprise me. In a domestic violence related case his question was "Can you give me another area where a misdemeanor suspends a constitutional right?” And to clarify that to an Attorney maybe momentarily struck dumb by his sudden verbosity he added “You’re saying that recklessness is sufficient to trigger a violation— misdemeanor violation of domestic conduct that results in a lifetime ban on possession of a gun, which, at least as of now, is still a constitutional right. . . . Can you think of another constitutional right that can be suspended based upon a misdemeanor violation of a state law?”
So typical of a judge who so proudly distains people, preferring his ancient dusty tomes and their archaic legalisms and minutiae to the real misery and human drama that are usually at the heart of Supreme Court cases.
Does anybody think an empathy for battered wives, who are up to six times more likely to die by gun violence at the hands of their batterers, will be reflected in his opinion on this case?

Domestic violence is not a misdemeanor, so your comparison is void.
Lawyers submit their briefs prior to the Supreme Court hearing. Justices can and do review them ahead of time. The Constitution does not change, so Thomas really does not need to say a word in the hearing. You are quick to dismiss rights as somehow increasing freedom, liberty and a better life.

Just what the hell are you going on about? It was Thomas himself who said "Ms. Eisenstein, just one question,.......Can you give me — this is a misdemeanor violation. It suspends a constitutional right. Can you give me another area where a misdemeanor violation suspends a constitutional right?”
So if anybody made a comparison "void" it was him not me. While you're thinking about that you might as well tell me what "comparison" you're talking about exactly? Your whole post is ambiguous e.g. "You are quick to dismiss rights as somehow increasing freedom, liberty and a better life." Again, what the hell does that pertain to? What does it even mean? What rights was I quick to dismiss? Where? Are you getting my statements and Thomas's statements mixed up?

 

[regent]

I wonder if the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798 had been checked out. Suppose one continued to criticize the president would he continue to be fined, if so was that losing one's right of free speech? Too lazy to check out the act but it too, I think, was a misdemeanor. Still, carrying a gun that can be used for a wrongful purpose any time it is carried is not like speech.