Supreme Court crowd stunned by Justice Thomas

[Artful]

http://www.sltrib.com/home/3597162-155/justice-thomas-poses-questions-stuns-supremeThomas breaks 10-year silence in Supreme CourtBy SAM HANANEL The Associated Press
First Published 7 hours ago • Updated 47 minutes ago
Washington • Justice Clarence Thomas broke 10 years of silence and provoked audible gasps Monday at the Supreme Court when he posed questions from the bench during an oral argument.
In a case about a federal law that bans people convicted of domestic violence from owning guns, Thomas wanted to know of any other case where breaking a law suspends constitutional rights.
And it wasn't just one question; it was a back-and-forth lasting a few minutes, which stunned lawyers, reporters and others in the courtroom.
It was only the second week the court has heard arguments since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, Thomas' friend and fellow conservative.

Scalia's chair is now draped in black in a tribute to his death on Feb. 13.


Thomas' questions Monday came in case in which the court is considering placing new limits on the reach of the 1996 law. The court is considering an appeal from two Maine men who say their guilty pleas for hitting their partners should not disqualify them from owning a firearm. The men say the law should only cover intentional acts of abuse and not those committed in the heat of an argument.


Most of the justices appeared to favor the government's position that even reckless acts of domestic assault fall under the law.


Justice Department lawyer Ilana Eisenstein was about to sit down after asking the justices if there were no further questions. Thomas then caught her by surprise, asking whether a misdemeanor conviction of any other law "suspends a constitutional right."


The sound of Thomas' gravelly voice prompted a few gasps among other lawyers. None of the other justices visibly reacted to his remarks.


Thomas' unusual silence has become a curiosity over the years. Thomas has previously said he relies on the written briefs and doesn't need to ask questions of the lawyers appearing in court.


Thomas last asked a question in court on Feb. 22, 2006. He has come under criticism for his silence from some who say he is neglecting his duties as a justice. Every other justice regularly poses questions from the bench.

[Teddy (punchie)]

Something to think about. Sound like maybe somehow the powers that be will understand we are losing freedoms.

[smokeywolf]

Sounds a little like (maybe wishful thinking) Justice Thomas is assuming the responsibilities that Justice Scalia would have seen to, were he still with us.

[JonB_in_Glencoe]

Sounds a little like (maybe wishful thinking) Justice Thomas is assuming the responsibilities that Justice Scalia would have seen to, were he still with us.
OR...
Justice Scalia was so vocally agressive, Justice Thomas never had a chance, or he felt he never needed to add anything. All I know is, I look forward to more questions and comments from Justice Thomas.

[popper]

Very slippery slope in that case.

[DoubleAdobe]

Regardless of Justice Thomas' motivation for asking the question, it is a dang good question.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

The law generally assume that people who plead guilty are guilty. It doesn't sound like a straightforward case of losing the freedom to hit one's wife, even though plenty of people, even those who have arguments, won't be affected. Isn't it quite rare for a single blow in the heat of an argument to get into court? Women's rights groups certainly say so. It sounds like the great majority of those affected will be habitually violent.

[aephilli822]

at one point wasn't it ARRESTED (no need for conviction) for misdemeanor domestic violence resulted in loss of right firearms?

[Omega]

The law generally assume that people who plead guilty are guilty. It doesn't sound like a straightforward case of losing the freedom to hit one's wife, even though plenty of people, even those who have arguments, won't be affected. Isn't it quite rare for a single blow in the heat of an argument to get into court? Women's rights groups certainly say so. It sounds like the great majority of those affected will be habitually violent.
Not really, in many places if there is any sign of domestic violence someone is going to jail. In some places, both parties will be taken in even if one was just defending. In the military, if there is a conviction on domestic violence, the Lautenberg Amendment kicks in and you lose your job.

[mold maker]

Since the question has been posed, expect more men to charge their wives of equal abuse. It's long been unreported, and had little consequences, but is often the reason men get charged. Equality is a double edged sword.

[Walkingwolf]

Not really, in many places if there is any sign of domestic violence someone is going to jail. In some places, both parties will be taken in even if one was just defending. In the military, if there is a conviction on domestic violence, the Lautenberg Amendment kicks in and you lose your job.
Many times there are no blows at all, just a way for a spouse to get the upper hand in court. It is one of the most abused laws in this country.

Years ago I knew a young nurse who was into spankings at parties, today if she wanted to she could get a whole bunch of men to lose their gun rights. Bruises, and her word against theirs, a lose, lose scenario.

[Hickok]

I always thought it was a disgrace the way Clarence Thomas was treated before his appointment to the Supreme Court. The tactics used against him were despicable and underhanded.

Many police officers have had a problem with carrying a gun because their wives have called in on them for domestic violence.

A spouse can be P.O.ed and simply call the authorites and you loose a Constitutional Right? Should never happen!

[1911sw45]

You should never lose any rights for a misdemeanor offense. Period!

[shooterg]

+1 on 1911sw45 . No VIOLENT felony, no loss of rights. People have gotten domestic violence assault convictions for very little. Not talking habitual behavior, one time incidents as simple as removing a drugged up daughter's boyfriend from your home, a shoving maych with the brother-in-law/etc..
Many LEO's got their convictions expunged, not so easy fro Joe Public. Pretty much impossible in my state. Plus the law was retroactive. Many folks payed their fine and went on with their life never realizing they had lost a right.
Laughtenburg was one of the sleaziest politicians ever !

[1911sw45]

+1 shooterg

[tommag]

I'm no legal eagle, but wouldn't changing the penalties long after the fact be considered an ex post facto law, specifically prohibited by the constitution?

[Walkingwolf]

I'm no legal eagle, but wouldn't changing the penalties long after the fact be considered an ex post facto law, specifically prohibited by the constitution?

This is the way I think their reasoning works. They do not consider it a penalty but actually them looking out for us. They are trying to sell that they are protecting us, when in fact it is just another way to get to what they really want.

[TheDoctor]

I'm no legal eagle, but wouldn't changing the penalties long after the fact be considered an ex post facto law, specifically prohibited by the constitution?

Tell that to all the servicemen who were wrongfully discharged back in 1999-2000. Lots got the boot for events 10+ years before that law came out. And the real kicker for most of them, is IF anything actually happened, and thats a big if, the overwhelming majority of actions were non-judicial. No trial. That ex post facto blanket really worked out for them. They law will be interpreted by whats politically expedient, not what's right. Law has been dead in this country for a long time.....

[Artful]

The law will be interpreted by whats politically expedient, not what's right. Law has been dead in this country for a long time.....

Not law but Justice and Equality - think what it would be like if you or I had gotten top secret messages on our home computer and it was discovered.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Not really, in many places if there is any sign of domestic violence someone is going to jail. In some places, both parties will be taken in even if one was just defending. In the military, if there is a conviction on domestic violence, the Lautenberg Amendment kicks in and you lose your job.

Just guessing, but I imagine that in most places it takes some pretty convincing sign to secure conviction. Incarceration on demand is not something the small minority of seriously abused women find easily obtainable.

Of course false accusation is a serious crime. As with frame-ups by the police, I think a fitting penalty would be whatever it was intendd to inflict on the victim. But genuinely violent spouse abuse or intimidation, which notwithstanding equality is most often perpetrated by whichever is the larger and stronger, is an extremely serious and unpleasant crime. The victim, or wife as she might be termed, can't escape it by driving instead of walking, using cards instead of cash or drinking in a different saloon. She can only do so by losing her home, traumatizing her children and living alone at an age when finding someone else may be different and her value on the labour market is low. Women live in fear for years, and some of them even love the creep.

Few people on this board will have a much larger, stronger, testosterone-fuelled partner. With those who do, a few will exploit false or exaggerated accusations. I can't see it as very different from exploiting size and strength. I think only a minority of adults, or even high school students, ever hit anybody, and hitting a woman is such an unnatural act that anybody who says "But of course I have perfect self-control with other people" had better be pretty convincing.

As for the military, we no longer live in an age when the nationality in someone's passport will say he or she is an enemy. I doubt if an army since time began has ever been without one soldier in a hundred, or so, who would freeze up or show an excessive interest in personal survival in the most dangerous of circumstances. Armies can cope with that. But one man's departure from the norms of conduct can echo round the world, and serious marital violence does raise an element of doubt.

[ironhead7544]

I'm no legal eagle, but wouldn't changing the penalties long after the fact be considered an ex post facto law, specifically prohibited by the constitution?

Yes. This needs to go back to court. More of this could be on the way.

[6bg6ga]

Here in Iowa when a person is arrested for domestic abuse you are considered guilty period. It used to be that a wife and or girlfriend or both had to testify in order to obtain a conviction. Now, the county attorneys office goes after the individual. In Iowa if you so much as raise your voice to your spouse and or girlfriend it is considered as abuse and therefore subject to a domestic abuse charge. If the charge is not a repeat charge or the individual didn't beat the holy hell out of their wife girlfriend and has no record the charge is generally reduced to an expunged and deferrred charge with nothing on your record. I know several with spotless records who have surcome to ths charge. Its imperfect to say the least. Having known someone charged in 1996 they had to undergo 26 weeks I believe of a batters schooling which in itself is a joke.

[dtknowles]

I always thought it was a disgrace the way Clarence Thomas was treated before his appointment to the Supreme Court. The tactics used against him were despicable and underhanded.

Many police officers have had a problem with carrying a gun because their wives have called in on them for domestic violence.

A spouse can be P.O.ed and simply call the authorites and you loose a Constitutional Right? Should never happen!

I wonder what you would have to do to get your wife to call the cops for domestic violence when there was none. What would you have to do to Pee her off that much? Not saying it is right but you might be getting just what you deserve. Who did you marry or move in with that they would call the Cops for something trivial? If it is not trivial, did you lie about something important or cheat or spend the rent money. Did you make a bad choice of partners or did you do something massively stupid? If she calls the Cops, it is probably Karma.

Tim

[Omega]

I wonder what you would have to do to get your wife to call the cops for domestic violence when there was none. What would you have to do to Pee her off that much? Not saying it is right but you might be getting just what you deserve. Who did you marry or move in with that they would call the Cops for something trivial? If it is not trivial, did you lie about something important or cheat or spend the rent money. Did you make a bad choice of partners or did you do something massively stupid? If she calls the Cops, it is probably Karma.

TimReally? Spending the rent money is enough for you to recommend someone lose their 2A rights?

[waksupi]

I wonder what you would have to do to get your wife to call the cops for domestic violence when there was none. What would you have to do to Pee her off that much? Not saying it is right but you might be getting just what you deserve. Who did you marry or move in with that they would call the Cops for something trivial? If it is not trivial, did you lie about something important or cheat or spend the rent money. Did you make a bad choice of partners or did you do something massively stupid? If she calls the Cops, it is probably Karma.

Tim
In one instance, a friend was arrested for domestic abuse. Charge was brought by an X girlfriend. As it happened, the time when it was supposed to have happened, he was playing music with myself and other friends, two of who happened to be deputies. It ended up with him being immediately released, and she was arrested for filing a false report. So, it does happen.

[aephilli822]

I wonder what you would have to do to get your wife to call the cops for domestic violence when there was none. What would you have to do to Pee her off that much? Not saying it is right but you might be getting just what you deserve. Who did you marry or move in with that they would call the Cops for something trivial? If it is not trivial, did you lie about something important or cheat or spend the rent money. Did you make a bad choice of partners or did you do something massively stupid? If she calls the Cops, it is probably Karma.

Tim


friend of my wife had an ex boyfriend come by her house drunk (reason she had quit dating him months before) & kick in the door to her room, when the cops (she called) got there he claimed he lived there and they arrested her.
so, NO.

[Blackwater]

I wonder what you would have to do to get your wife to call the cops for domestic violence when there was none. What would you have to do to Pee her off that much? Not saying it is right but you might be getting just what you deserve. Who did you marry or move in with that they would call the Cops for something trivial? If it is not trivial, did you lie about something important or cheat or spend the rent money. Did you make a bad choice of partners or did you do something massively stupid? If she calls the Cops, it is probably Karma.

Tim

EVidently, Tim, you've never spent any time around the courts. If you had, you'd realize that all sorts of things you'd never imagine DO happen, and sometimes, not infrequently. But until you see it, you won't believe it, because it doesn't make sense to your intellect. Our intellects keep us from seeing many things, though, and it's not too unusual to fail to accept a truth that just can't penetrate into our intellects. But that does NOT keep them from being true.

It IS possible to place TOO much faith in our intellects. That's why I think God gave us other means of sensing Truth, like our intuition, humility (it helps us accept things like paradox, etc.), and maybe what some call "karma." If all people will accept is stuff that fits within their intellect, they always wind up as some sort of agnostic. We have to be open to the things that defy logic to be able to see them.

[M-Tecs]

I wonder what you would have to do to get your wife to call the cops for domestic violence when there was none. What would you have to do to Pee her off that much? Not saying it is right but you might be getting just what you deserve. Who did you marry or move in with that they would call the Cops for something trivial? If it is not trivial, did you lie about something important or cheat or spend the rent money. Did you make a bad choice of partners or did you do something massively stupid? If she calls the Cops, it is probably Karma.

Tim

Friend of mine started dating a lady. He decided to breakup after signs she was not very stable. Guess who she called and what claims she made? She claimed he hit her when they bumped into each other at the mall. Surveillance video showed when he saw her he turned around and walked away. He was never within 25 feet of her. Same BS happens when people get divorced.

[Lance Boyle]

Lots of false claims by women (and a few men) out there getting the other jammed up. Then there's the other even more common and sad scenario, she hits first and he hits back usually with more strength that she has. Normally he loses that one too, but sometimes both.

I bring that up because I have a sister that is on the unstable side. She goes from ditzy sweet to loud and violent in short order, often bewildering those around her. In her marriage I'm not sure if she was the gas or the match. He had just as bad a temper I believe but he maintained she was the initiator and I can't doubt it on past experience. Thankfully they divorced but they've ruined their lives and the lives of their kids.


I live in NY. Pretty much the woman wins in court every time unless there are witnesses to the contrary.

As far as rights being forfeited for verbal arguments or even shoving I have a huge huge problem with that.


ETA I suspect Justice Thomas was more often satisfied with Justice Scalia's questioning and felt no need to double down. It's not an unusual pattern for one coworker to let a more aggressive like minded person take the lead.

[Walkingwolf]

Thomas knows all too well how damaging false accusations can be. But I have also heard he does not support the felon ban after they served their time.

[shooter93]

Nor should he support the felon ban after their release. If the crime is so heinous that they lose rights they should not be released.

[mold maker]

Revolving door justice kind of messes with that idea. Not everyone released has served their time, and there are too many second offenders.

[Hickok]

I wonder what you would have to do to get your wife to call the cops for domestic violence when there was none. What would you have to do to Pee her off that much? Not saying it is right but you might be getting just what you deserve. Who did you marry or move in with that they would call the Cops for something trivial? If it is not trivial, did you lie about something important or cheat or spend the rent money. Did you make a bad choice of partners or did you do something massively stupid? If she calls the Cops, it is probably Karma.

TimSounds like some of those here have stories about "Karma" going bad.

[shooter93]

While that may be true mold maker the flaw is with that system and not the 2nd Amendment.

[DoubleAdobe]

After I was in LE for a while I started to understand why some of the older, more seasoned guys were a little jaded about the then fairly new domestic violence statutes.
I would hear them disparagingly refer to the women's shelter as the slapaho hotel and comments like that. Then after a while, you do see the way women especially use the law to their advantage to eviscerate their husbands and/or boyfriends. A real, genuine wife beater should be dealt with harshly, but a large percentage of the DV cases are basically ridiculous. And how a misdemeanor causes the loss of firearms and in the case of military and LE, jobs, is something that needs fixing.

[dtknowles]

Really? Spending the rent money is enough for you to recommend someone lose their 2A rights?

No. I did not say it was right but sometimes Karma is a .........

Tim

[Artful]

Nor should he support the felon ban after their release. If the crime is so heinous that they lose rights they should not be released.

Anyone remember when Felon's lost their 2nd amendment rights?

[Ballistics in Scotland]

I wonder what you would have to do to get your wife to call the cops for domestic violence when there was none. What would you have to do to Pee her off that much? Not saying it is right but you might be getting just what you deserve. Who did you marry or move in with that they would call the Cops for something trivial? If it is not trivial, did you lie about something important or cheat or spend the rent money. Did you make a bad choice of partners or did you do something massively stupid? If she calls the Cops, it is probably Karma.

Tim

I also missed your recommendation that wife should make a false assault claim for spending the rent money, for you didn't make it in the above. You certainly don't suggest that anybody responsible for charges, conviction or losing Second Amendment rights should say "This is faked up over the rent money, but that's enough." Not many would.

What I believe you mean is that the tendency for such false accusations to follow severe misconduct by the husband is a further limitation on how often it happens. It is not likely to happen to everybody who has a heated argument with his wife. Of course it is right that anyone who brings a provably false accusation should have the book thrown at them. It won't often be provable, few people these days being dim enough not to know that shopping malls have cameras. But self-inflicted injuries aren't that easy to get right and it takes very few getting caught to convince potential offenders that it is dangerous.

In Scotland, though not in England, we have a requirement for at least two sources of evidence to secure a criminal conviction. Accusation plus bruises would be the commonest for this type. I know of policemen remaining uncharged with perjury when an old lady's testimony in court was backed up by a post office air letter form, postmarked on the back at a time when they said they had avoided telling her her son was in any trouble. This was held to be a single source of evidence, and the officers' interests were respected. They got early retirement on health grounds faster than most do.