US: Justice Thomas asks questions in court, 1st time in 10 years

[webfact]

Justice Thomas asks questions in court, 1st time in 10 years
By SAM HANANEL

WASHINGTON (AP) — Justice Clarence Thomas broke 10 years of courtroom silence Monday and posed questions during a Supreme Court oral argument, provoking gasps from the audience.

And it wasn't just one question; it was a string of them in an exchange that lasted several minutes.

It was only the second week the court has heard arguments since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, Thomas' friend and fellow conservative, whom he'd sat next to for seven years. Scalia was famous for aggressive and sometimes combative questions from the bench. His chair is now draped in black in observance of his Feb. 13 death.

Thomas' gravelly voice unexpectedly filled the courtroom and enlivened an otherwise sleepy argument about gun rights. He peppered Justice Department lawyer Ilana Eisenstein, who was trying to wind up her argument, with 10 or so questions that seemed to be a vigorous defense of the constitutional right to own a gun.

"Ms. Eisenstein, one question," Thomas said. "This is a misdemeanor violation. It suspends a constitutional right. Can you give me another area where a misdemeanor violation suspends a constitutional right?"

Until then, it had been business as usual for the first 50 minutes of the hourlong session in Voisine v. United States. The court was considering the reach of a federal law that bans people convicted of domestic violence from owning guns.

None of the other justices visibly reacted to Thomas' remarks.

Eisenstein noted that violating other laws can, in some cases, limit a person's free-speech rights under the First Amendment.

"OK," Thomas said. "So can you think of a First Amendment suspension or a suspension of a First Amendment right that is permanent?"

It was a topic no other justice had asked about. And his comments came after several of the other justices seemed to favor the government's position that the law applies whether the abuse is intentional or reckless.

Thomas last asked a question in court on Feb. 22, 2006, and his unusual silence over the years has become a curiosity. Every other justice regularly poses questions from the bench.

Thomas has come under criticism for his silence from some who say he is neglecting his duties as a justice. He has said he relies on the written briefs in a case and doesn't need to ask questions of the lawyers appearing in court.

Carrie Severino, a former clerk to Thomas who now heads a conservative advocacy group, said the justice had kept his silence "because he felt that oral arguments have become less civil and respectful of the attorneys and their arguments over the past two decades, often becoming little more than rhetorical jousting among the justices."

Like Scalia, Thomas has long championed Second Amendment gun rights. In December, he and Scalia objected when the high court refused to hear a challenge to a Chicago suburb's assault weapons ban that was upheld by lower courts. Thomas said the justices should not stand by while lower courts relegate "the Second Amendment to a second-class right."

Thomas did not speak during the court's second argument on Monday.
___

Associated Press writer Mark Sherman contributed to this report.


-- (c) Associated Press 2016-03-01

[slerickson]

Yea he's another republicon piece of work.

[Somtamnication]

Hope he asked questions about a coke can and "hair".

[ezzra]

Silence is golden
But my eyes' still see
Silence is golden, golden
But my eyes still see........

[Pinot]

Perfect! His first question after 10 years of court silence is a defense of domestic abusers and their gun rights. Where's Anita Hill when we need her?

I loath this POS, a pathetic waste of space. A man who gets up every morning, looks in the mirror and is disgusted by what he sees.

This guy can't kick the bucket too soon. Good ahead Clarence and do what the guy that's been telling you what to do since you got there, just did...drop dead. Please!

[harrry]

Seem fair questions to ask. Relevant and important to the issue.

[geriatrickid]

Perfect! His first question after 10 years of court silence is a defense of domestic abusers and their gun rights. Where's Anita Hill when we need her?

I loath this POS, a pathetic waste of space. A man who gets up every morning, looks in the mirror and is disgusted by what he sees.

This guy can't kick the bucket too soon. Good ahead Clarence and do what the guy that's been telling you what to do since you got there, just did...drop dead. Please!

I don't think he is disgusted by what he sees. I'd offer that he believes he is doing important and honourable.

He is a devout Roman Catholic and had studied to become a priest. He worked his way up and paid his dues to get where he is.

It's these life experiences that shaped his views. Despite claims from his critics, his academic records indicate that he is intelligent.

Like him or hate him, he states his opinion based upon law. Keep in mind that he has been one of the most vocal and ardent supporters of the right to free speech. He was also the one who ripped into the Texas sodomy law calling it a waste of resources and one that should be repealed (even though his opinion supported the state's right to set the law.)

It's far too easy to paint issues as black and white, to label the justices as liberal or conservative. They aren't. They interpret the law.

[Ulysses G.]

Perfect! His first question after 10 years of court silence is a defense of domestic abusers and their gun rights. Where's Anita Hill when we need her?

I loath this POS, a pathetic waste of space. A man who gets up every morning, looks in the mirror and is disgusted by what he sees.

This guy can't kick the bucket too soon. Good ahead Clarence and do what the guy that's been telling you what to do since you got there, just did...drop dead. Please!

I don't think he is disgusted by what he sees. I'd offer that he believes he is doing important and honourable.

He is a devout Roman Catholic and had studied to become a priest. He worked his way up and paid his dues to get where he is.

It's these life experiences that shaped his views. Despite claims from his critics, his academic records indicate that he is intelligent.

Like him or hate him, he states his opinion based upon law. Keep in mind that he has been one of the most vocal and ardent supporters of the right to free speech. He was also the one who ripped into the Texas sodomy law calling it a waste of resources and one that should be repealed (even though his opinion supported the state's right to set the law.)

It's far too easy to paint issues as black and white, to label the justices as liberal or conservative. They aren't. They interpret the law.

Kudos to geriatrickid. He is always worth reading, even though we often disagree. What a contrast between him and the Kool Aid drinking bumpkin who sees everything through a partisan lens.

[Srikcir]

A question for Thomas might be, "What kind of domestic abuse do you have to be convicted of to have your gun rights taken away?"

NRA would say none.

This court case stems from the federal Lautenberg Amendment passed into law by the US Congress in 1996:

Any person “who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” cannot purchase or receive a firearm.

Senator Lautenberg himself thought the ban might apply to an assailant who gets so riled up that he assaults his partner “almost without knowing what he is doing.”

The petitioners Stephen Voisine and William Armstron have argued that "if the Lautenberg Amendment is not to unconstitutionally infringe on Second Amendment rights, it can not apply to reckless domestic abuse that does not cause serious injury. But the court will not consider the constitutionality of the Lautenberg Amendment as a whole, instead only seeking to answer whether the domestic abuse gun ban should apply to impulsive abusers. If the Justices agree with Voisine and Armstrong, it would narrow the kinds of state domestic violence convictions that prevent abusers from getting a gun."¹

Laws are intended to discourage illegal behavior as much as they are to punish illegal behavior. To wait for an abuser to seriously injure or kill with a gun before losing the right to own a gun runs counter to the Lautenberg Amendment and unnecessarily puts innocent people at risk.

^{1 http://www.thetrace.org/2015/10/supreme-court-domestic-violence-misdemeanor-voisine-armstrong/}

[up-country_sinclair]

While it is somewhat odd that Justice Thomas has been so silent on the bench for the last 10 years, I think far too much is being made of this. One of his former clerks gave a pretty good reason

the justice had kept his silence "because he felt that oral arguments have become less civil and respectful of the attorneys and their arguments over the past two decades, often becoming little more than rhetorical jousting among the justices."

What a contrast between him and the Kool Aid drinking bumpkin who sees everything through a partisan lens.

Edited March 1, 2016 by up-country_sinclair

[Scott]

Please keep it civil. The thread is about a Supreme Court Justice. Stay on topic.

[Ulic]

Before Scalia asked the questions and he had no kneed to speak up.

Now he will speak up in place of Scalia. I may not agree with many of

the opinions of the Supreme court because I believe the constitution

was written a long time ago and things change. That said everyone on

the supreme court is far, far, smarter than me. We just have to agree

to disagree on some calls. No worries, my thoughts don't count for Jack.

[Scott]

An inflammatory post has been removed along with replies. Apparently some posters don't believe that there are consequences for posts whose sole purpose is to inflame others. It's called trolling and it is against the forum rules.