SCOTUS Justice Thomas breaks 10-year streak, asks a question

Tiny Bible

All Lives Matter. Pray BLM Learn That.
Jan 3, 2016
1,182
559
whyaskthat
✟19,244.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship


"Thomas' questions came in case in which the court is considering placing new limits on the reach of a federal law that bans people convicted of domestic violence from owning guns.

With about 10 minutes left in the hourlong session, Justice Department lawyer Ilana Eisenstein was about to sit down after answering a barrage of questions from other justices. Thomas then caught her by surprise, asking whether the violation of any other law "suspends a constitutional right." "
CBS Article
Clarence Thomas asks questions in court for 1st time in 10 years



It's interesting this happens after Justice Scalia is passed on.
 

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,625
6,387
✟293,730.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
It's interesting this happens after Justice Scalia is passed on.

Not really, Justice Thomas has said with regard to his silence that the Justices speak too much in his opinion instead of letting the advocates do their job.

With Scalia missing there may actually be questions that Thomas wanted answered that didn't come up in the argument.
 
Upvote 0

Fantine

Dona Quixote
Supporter
Jun 11, 2005
37,037
13,063
✟1,077,454.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I believe that people convicted of felonies lose their right to own a gun. In some red states, they also lose the right to vote.

Where the domestic violence is a felony, why should it be treated differently from any other felony? Grand larceny is a felony, and it might only be a theft of a few hundred bucks. Is not harming family members that you pledged to love and honor, or innocent children in your care, an even more heinous offense?

If a thief, harming no one physically, can lose his rights to own a gun, why are we not protecting innocent women and children and the elderly from thugs in their own homes?

I do believe that many of Thomas' decisions on the Court are the result of the financial gain his wife gets from running conservative thinks tanks and consulting firms promising her clients "access" to the judiciary.

But in this case it's just poor judgment, egregiously poor judgment.

Congress should have listened to Anita Hill--this "empty robe," siding with domestic abusers, should never have been appointed to the bench.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tiny Bible
Upvote 0

Tiny Bible

All Lives Matter. Pray BLM Learn That.
Jan 3, 2016
1,182
559
whyaskthat
✟19,244.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
There have been other observations made for Thomas' silence from the bench. He has even said he likes to have everything written in the brief and prefers that to long oral arguments. I'm paraphrasing those remarks he's made on the record.

I personally thought his silence may have something to do with all the justices already seated watching Thomas' confirmation hearings, realizing his remarks to certain questions were racist. And after he was appointed to the bench even reflected that of lying under oath during the hearings. Knowing this he may have been confronted about his legitimacy being in question as a worthy Justice.
Speculation there of course.
 
Upvote 0

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,625
6,387
✟293,730.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
I believe that people convicted of felonies lose their right to own a gun. In some red states, they also lose the right to vote.

Where the domestic violence is a felony, why should it be treated differently from any other felony? Grand larceny is a felony, and it might only be a theft of a few hundred bucks. Is not harming family members that you pledged to love and honor, or innocent children in your care, an even more heinous offense?

Thomas was specifically asking about non-felony charges losing people the right to own guns.

His argument is a bit specious because with say a protection from abuse order (no actual crime need be committed) you lose the right to simply be somewhere (covered in the first amendment "freedom of assembly") the question is whether the order is justified.

Funny enough I think I could have answered his question.
 
Upvote 0

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,625
6,387
✟293,730.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
There have been other observations made for Thomas' silence from the bench. He has even said he likes to have everything written in the brief and prefers that to long oral arguments. I'm paraphrasing those remarks he's made on the record

It would depend on someones strengths and process.

If you are a better analytical reader than you are a listener then the choppy, interrupted oral arguments simply might not be his best avenue for understanding the case and forming a complex legal argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaisyDay
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
It's interesting this happens after Justice Scalia is passed on.

It took a while for Thomas to remember how to move his lips without Scalia's hand in his back...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fantine
Upvote 0

Tallguy88

We shall see the King when he comes!
Supporter
Jan 13, 2009
32,459
7,737
Parts Unknown
✟240,396.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Justice Thomas has also spoken about how his native language, Gullah, was practically beaten out of him in school. So that may be one reason he doesn't like to speak publicly.

Edit: it seems Wiki agrees with me:

"U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomaswas raised as a Gullah speaker in coastal Georgia. When asked why he has little to say during hearings of the court, he told a high school student that the ridicule he received for his Gullah speech as a young man caused him to develop the habit of listening rather than speaking in public. Thomas's English-speaking grandfather raised him after the age of six in Savannah."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gullah_language
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Fantine

Dona Quixote
Supporter
Jun 11, 2005
37,037
13,063
✟1,077,454.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Anita Hiil was and is a brilliant, well-respected law professor. There were some irregularities in the Senate hearings. One witness wasn't allowed to testify because she had been fired from her job on the EEOC by Thomas (perhaps because she was a friend of Hill's.) An all-male Senate judiciary committee gave little credence to her claims.

The public did, however. There was a huge increase in female House and Senate members in 1992, fueled by women's frustration with the Thomas confirmation. Businesses enacted sexual harassment policies.

Shortly after the Thomas confirmation hearings, President George H. W. Bush dropped his opposition to a bill giving harassment victims the right to seek federal damage awards, back pay and reinstatement, and the law was passed by Congress.[31][32] One year later, harassment complaints filed with the EEOC were up 50 percent and public opinion had shifted in Hill's favor.[32] Private companies also started training programs to deter sexual harassment.[31

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Hill

I am one of the many (the article indicates we are in the majority) who believed and continue to believe Hill, and I think that Thomas has proven over and over again to have been the wrong choice--and an unworthy successor to Thurgood Marshall.-

His harassment is past history, but his conflict of interest--evidenced by his wife's consulting business and her promises that she will grant them "access" to the Supreme Court--is, I think, an impeachable offense (or at least enough to force him to recuse himself from most decisions).
 
Upvote 0

Fantine

Dona Quixote
Supporter
Jun 11, 2005
37,037
13,063
✟1,077,454.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
A Supreme Court justice isn't a politician--at least (s)he shouldn't be.

That's why I am concerned that Justice Scalia died while enjoying a luxury weekend in the resort of a wealthy former defendant before the court.

Although Scalia took more trips than any other justice, all of the justices have enjoyed free vacations. This practice should end, as it has ended for elected officials.

If a justice's spouse has made a career in politics, lobbying, political consulting, etc. that places the justice in a situation of conflict of interest, especially if the justice's spouse promises access to the justice and his/her colleagues.

Every justice joins the court with a particular judicial philosophy, but inasmuch as it is possible (s)he should be free of outside influences while deciding each case on its merits.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Tiny Bible

All Lives Matter. Pray BLM Learn That.
Jan 3, 2016
1,182
559
whyaskthat
✟19,244.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
It took a while for Thomas to remember how to move his lips without Scalia's hand in his back...
That analogy actually fails when you consider prior to this report Thomas was only known to have spoken once from the bench.
 
Upvote 0