Area Man Wakes Up After Decade-Long Nap https://t.co/UDdVk6XcdP
— Wesley Lowery (@WesleyLowery) February 29, 2016
Thomas stunned the courtroom by speaking up during a low-profile case involving a federal law that bans people convincted of domestic violence from owning a gun. Thomas asked whether conviction for breaking any other law suspends a person’s constitutional rights.
Thomas stopped Assistant Solicitor General Ilana H. Eisenstein just as she was about to stop presenting her case.
“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?” He then went on to ask a number of follow-up questions.
Hardly worth the ten year wait.
Elizabelle
Too funny. I was just coming over to Betty’s thread to post this, hot off top of the NY Times website.
A disturbance is felt in the universe.
Ruckus
Give him a break. He’s out of practice at this question thing and is having to learn all over.
The question really should be, Why Now? What happened recently that might have brought on this complete change?
Big Ol Hound
I guess his big mouthpiece Scalia has been asking the questions before dimwitted Thomas could raise his hand. Go to the back of the room Clarance and try to find a new lab partner. How about that nice lady Ruth? Just vote like she does.
gluon1
It’s actually a good and serious question that may have completely changed the course of the case. I’ve said many times — not here, you lucky duckies — that liberals denigrate Thomas’s abilities to our great detriment. The man is incredibly smart and talented. He operates from a set of ludicrous priors, so his conclusions are all terrible, and he is extremely closed-minded, but that does not mean he is not a better — meaning worse, for our side — justice than Scalia was.
See, for example, this article from the liberals at ThinkProgress:
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/02/24/3321531/clarence-thomas-americas-legal-minds-progressives-ignore-fact-peril/
or, if you can get past the firewall, this:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB116942562567883221
Davebo
ruemara
Ha! Scalia had his tongue all this time.
Anonymous At Work
Did they autopsy Scalia to check for strings and such? I didn’t mock his position, which was perfectly reasonable. However, if he is changing his position since Scalia isn’t there to do the open mockery, that’s something different.
Bill E Pilgrim
Reminds me of the joke about those convent orders that observe vows of silence.
After one year, they’re allowed to say two words. When newcomer Sister Mary Margaret is called in after a year to see the Mother Superior, she says “Hard bed”
“Oh I see” the Mother Superior says, “well we’ll see if we can do something about that.”
After two years, they’re allowed another two words, and Sister Mary Margaret says “Bad food” at which the Mother Superior says oh that’s too bad, okay we’ll take a look.
Only after five more years, they’re allowed two more words. Sister Mary Margaret takes the opportunity to say ‘I quit”
“Well, you might as well” the Mother Superior says, “You’re done nothing but complain since you got here”.
LAO
Damn it — you all beat me to it. Alito is going to have to put his foot down and assume Scalia’s mantle.
SiubhanDuinne
Great thread title!
NonyNony
@Ruckus:
Scalia died. Scalia had a motormouth, a penchant for grandstanding, and sat ideologically near Thomas. Any question Thomas might have had, Scalia was probably going to ask anyway. So he never really needed to speak up.
With Scalia dead there are questions that will go unanswered if Thomas doesn’t ask them. While conservative, Kennedy, Alito and Roberts are not in the same ideological space he is. Scalia was close enough that he’d ask the “right” questions.
I suspect he’ll be asking more questions from here on out. Probably only a few total each case, but more than he has.
M31
And what was the topic that caused him to break a 10-year silence? Uppity women might cause noble upstanding menz to lose their guns?
Couldn’t be that domestic violence + guns causes any REAL trouble or anything.
Christ, what an asshole.
LAO
Sort of off topic — are there any lawyers (of the many here) who practice in the 11th Circuit? Just got granted oral argument in a criminal appeal and have no idea what to expect. Any insight? Still don’t know the panel.
WarMunchkin
Any gamers want to make some good Thomas Was Alone jokes?
Calouste
Obviously the answer to Thomas’s question would be to make domestic violence a felony. I can live with that.
Punchy
OT, but day’um. I knew wingtards wanted to live in stupidity, but I didn’t think they’d force the kids to do the same as well.
LAO
@Calouste: It is pretty common in New York, that DV defendants are offered a conditional plea — plead to a felony — sentenced delayed — complete an anger management program and felony is reduced to misdemeanor.
Steve in the ATL
1. Did Clarence Thomas ever ask where in the Constitution it says the state can take away a person’s voting rights after a felony conviction?
2. I’m in the 11th Circuit but I’m in house and know nothing about criminal law so why am I even responding to this?
The Other Chuck
@Punchy: What on earth made you think they’d want educated kids?
Immanentize
Just to help answer the Thomas question — all sorts of constitutional rights are impacted when one is convicted of drunk driving (a misdemeanor). Also, dipshit, people serve time in jail for misdemeanors which rather takes away a whole host of constitutional rights.
That would have been my answer….
John Cole
We’re 20 fucking comments in and no one is appreciating that title.
Fuck you people.
NorthLeft12
@Calouste: Yes, exactly. Apparently beating up your spouse is just a trifling misdemeanor.
But in a strictly legal world that is the only point that matters. The intent of the law is to attempt to keep guns out of a volatile domestic situation, but that is secondary to the fact that the statutes only identify domestic violence as a misdemeanor. Fantastic.
LAO
@M31: Isn’t there a religious aspect to all of this. If the religious right believes that men have an absolute right to enforce their authority over their wives — then it becomes a First Amendment issue. ie, their God tells them that have full control over women but the state can take away their right to own and carry firearms if they exercise that authority. I actually expect to hear this argument at some point.
Smedley Darlington Prunebanks (formerly Mumphrey, et al.)
@Punchy: Hey, it’s West Virginia. Nobody there needs to worry about the seas rising. If somebody else has to deal with it, why should West Virginia Republicans care?
LAO
@John Cole: See comment 10.
NorthLeft12
@John Cole: Did you not see comment # 10?
Immanentize
@LAO: I’ve argued a bunch in the fifth, which I assume is pretty much the same. My suggestion is for you to contact the Federal Defender in your area (or in Atlanta or both) and ask for advice and a moot court for your argument. They will be happy to help you.
Steve in the ATL
@John Cole: Please see comment #10!
Smedley Darlington Prunebanks (formerly Mumphrey, et al.)
@John Cole: Hey, now, I like it. And somebody above already said it was great. If you give up writing funny thread titles, what will we have left to live for?
Immanentize
@NorthLeft12: Maybe he slept through the first 15 comments?
SiubhanDuinne
@John Cole:
Jesus, John, read the fucking comments. Especially #10.
LAO
@Steve in the ATL: Thanks for responding anyway. PS regarding point 1 — conservatives do not believe there is a constitutional right to vote — so Thomas probably wouldn’t accept analogy.
sharl
OT: Peter Beinart would like a word with the libruls.
~
Those of you whose primaries are yet to come – and if your state laws permit cross-over voting – please get on this forthwith. After all, has Mr. Beinart ever steered folks wrong before?
MomSense
Oh FFS, of course this is the issue that finally causes him to speak.
Roger Moore
@NonyNony:
Not really true. Thomas actually voted with Alito a little bit more often than he voted with Scalia.
Bill E Pilgrim
@Punchy: Not to be too snarky but I figured their devotion to passing their stupidity along to the younger generations was pretty evident from things like “creation” museums with exhibits of humans and dinosaurs cohabitating.
Nate Dawg
@John Cole:
Look who’s sleeping now!
SiubhanDuinne
@LAO:
@NorthLeft12:
@Steve in the ATL:
Thanks, you guys. Love you too.
LAO
@Immanentize: That’s a great idea. I practice in the 2d Circuit — which is a whole different world!
Immanentize
Meanwhile, Heller said that the only constitutional purpose of the 2nd amendment is self-protection and I think it could be argued that being found guilty of an assaultive crime allows the State to shift from a presumption that a gun will be used for self defense to a presumption that it would be used for violence….
Of course, in real life, police are constantly allowed to plead to crimes other than domestic violence charges so that they will not “lose their livelihood.” Bastards.
JudyinSD
@John Cole: See Comment 10
Immanentize
@LAO: So true — I am now in the first (Boston).
Punchy
@Smedley Darlington Prunebanks (formerly Mumphrey, et al.): Good point. Why expect a focus on carbon dioxide effects and coral bleaching when they’re clearly having some trouble with indoor plumbing and marrying outside the immediate family?
Small steps.
Bill E Pilgrim
@SiubhanDuinne:
John must be using the BJ “Spinal Tap” theme, its comment section display goes directly to 11.
LAO
@Immanentize: Thank God you got out of the 5th Circuit! The entire time I was researching and writing this (11th Circuit) brief, I kept repeating — it could be worse, I could be in the 5th Circuit.
WarMunchkin
@John Cole: See comment #10
What? That’s the game we’re playing, right?
Big R
@LAO: I do. I assume you represent the defendant?
If you want to post an e-mail address, I’ll e-mail you my thoughts privately.
blueskies
@Bill E Pilgrim: And there are entire books written about the genesis of private “Christian” schools. Hint: Had and has less to do with Jesus and more to do with the nig-CLANG that might end up sitting on the bus with your kids.
Immanentize
@LAO: The Fifth was brutal — it has gotten better with some appointments and retirements, but it is still brutal. If you get one not-crazy judge on a panel it was a win.
Roger Moore
@Steve in the ATL:
The 14th Amendment, for one. It’s right there in Section 2:
That “or other crime” clearly says that it’s just fine to strip somebody of the right to vote as the result of a criminal conviction. My impression is that it would probably be limited to felonies or they would say “crime or misdemeanor”, but it clearly anticipates people being stripped of their right to vote for a criminal conviction.
Gin & Tonic
@NorthLeft12: Cole doesn’t read this blog.
John Cole
@SiubhanDuinne: My bad.
gratuitous
@Calouste: I think that’s where the crux of all this is. Domestic violence has long been considering “not that big a deal” in the overall scheme of things. That has changed in the last 20 years or so, as more resources are devoted to dealing with this problem. The law, though, still lags behind the progress in any number of jurisdictions, so the laws on the books still call it a misdemeanor offense. In times past, we had the same attitude toward drunk driving. In some jurisdictions, it was little more than a traffic fine similar to overtime parking. Pay your $5, and the ticket goes away. Drunk driving was almost a rite of passage in some corners of our society.
We’re groping forward on more effective methods of dealing with domestic violence, but grappling with a lot of questions: If you make DV a felony, are you breaking up a family? Maybe the family should be broken up, maybe it shouldn’t. Will a DV conviction lead to significant jail time? Will a DV conviction prevent the offender from being the family breadwinner or paying support? How will the family fare financially? Can we make provision for that? Should we?
There are a lot of levels to this problem, but I would argue almost a priori that the presence of a firearm in a volatile domestic violence situation isn’t going to make it any better, regardless whether any particular jurisdiction decides DV is a felony or a misdemeanor.
Betty Cracker
@sharl: Screw that noise. The Boston Globe editorial page recently made the argument that’s up to Democrats to save the Republican Party itself (also while urging Bay State Democrats to vote for Rubio over Trump in the Republican primary). Steve M at No More Mr. Nice Blog made the excellent point that the Republican Party has been behaving like an abusive drunk for 30+ years now and that maybe it needs to wake up in a pool of its own vomit.
JGabriel
@John Cole: See Comment # … Aw, fuck it.
Edited to Add: Nice title.
WarMunchkin
So uh, are there examples of what Thomas asked about?
WaterGirl
@Elizabelle: I had two aunts who were nuns. Sister Gerald was fun and funny and boisterous; she had this great laugh and she would even have a couple of drinks when she came to our house on Christmas. Her actual sister, Sister Bernice, had a very quiet voice and a very slow way of speaking, which she didn’t do much.
Sister Gerald died the day after her 50th Jubilee – the 50th anniversary of her ‘marriage’ to Christ. Oh my gosh, after Sister Gerald died Sister Bernice started talking and talked and talked and talked. Disturbance in the force, indeed!
JGabriel
@Betty Cracker:
I’m with Steve, though I would like to add: “… and OD’ing on outrage heroin with a half full hypodermic syringe still stuck in its arm.”
Ridnik Chrome
@sharl: Beinart has apparently never heard that old political saying that when your enemy is drowning you should toss him an anvil…
Calouste
@sharl:
What? Vote for Cruz?
At least Cruz looks like he will get some delegates out of his home state, and might even win a state, unlike Rubio.
Brachiator
@Bill E Pilgrim:
Whoa, now! This smacks of b@stiality. This is what they are teaching in creation museums?
LAO
@Big R: Yes and yes. Just debating whether I want to post my real email because not creative enough to create an new gmail account.
JPL
Part of me wants to say, see comment lol
SiubhanDuinne, you got an apology, although a weak one.
When are we going to have a makeamericadrumpfagain, blog?
WaterGirl
@LAO: You can also write to Anne Laurie and ask her to give your email address to Big R.
@Big R: Then Big R. can write to Anne Laurie and ask for your address. Anne Laurie has been kind enough to do that for me multiple times.
p.a.
@John Cole:
As the owner/operator of this blog you should know better than to expect ego-stroking here. Or any other stroking for that matter…
CONGRATULATIONS!
@Betty Cracker: Been hearing a lot of that recently, takes everything I can not to laugh in someone’s face when I do. Instead, I give ’em a “you broke it you fix it” speech, with a little dig towards “personal responsibility” in there, and note how if our positions were reversed the GOP wouldn’t lift a finger to help Dems. Which they have to grudgingly acknowledge, but it really pisses them off because they EXPECT that we’ll come in and clean up their mess.
And this is what I will never say to a Republican but it is true: after watching what you put our president, a decent human being who did his best to meet you halfway, through for the last seven years, I will never lift a finger to help the GOP again even if they’re going to elect Satan himself, and I suspect a lot of Democrats agree with me on that.
ET
Ah Justice Thomas – his question definitely seems that he supports wife abusers right to kill/threaten spouses…… The Constitution doesn’t exist in a fantasy world….
Justice Scalia dies and now Thomas speaks. Coincidence?
Bill E Pilgrim
@Brachiator:
‘struth. They clearly show dinosaurs and homo sapiens shacking up together in a jungle.
It’s not a big jungle, but it’s their first one, so they love it. A starter jungle.
Matt McIrvin
@Betty Cracker: As I mentioned before, I’ve seen at least one progressive urging Democrats to give monetary support to the National Review’s anti-Trump campaign.
Presuming that Trump is truly a Nazi and the other Republicans aren’t so bad, and assuming that NR is actually somehow capable of hurting Trump and isn’t just running a pure grift, this makes sense. However, I think at least some of those premises are wrong.
LAO
@Big R: [email protected]
Widespread mortgage fraud case originating in the SDFla. Have a legitimate sufficiency argument (I know how is that possible? I could be delusional)
Thank you.
LAO
@WaterGirl: great idea — but too late :-(. I really can be an idiot sometimes.
Steve in the ATL
@Roger Moore:
Which is an indictment. Alito is worse than Scalia was!
Bobby Thomson
@Big Ol Hound: this sort of thing really passes me off. If anything, Thomas was smarter than Scalia. The frame of the submissive black looking to the white guy for guidance is well established, and not by angels.
muddy
@John Cole: So obvious that you had her pied, and probably only because she is a Canuck spy scoundrel. Don’t be so narrow!
Matt McIrvin
@CONGRATULATIONS!: I remember some Democrats crossing over to vote for McCain against George W. Bush in the 2000 primary. But the Democratic primary was an essentially foregone conclusion that year; Bradley contested the nomination but was never doing as well as Sanders.
Elizabelle
@WaterGirl: I like that story.
@CONGRATULATIONS!: Agreed. GOP has to go the way of the Whigs. Or the Dixiecrats. Don’t throw them a rope; they’ll just use it to drag you down too.
Origuy
@JGabriel: No, with a scar on their abdomen and a kidney missing.
WaterGirl
@LAO: You can still ask for your comment to be deleted. That way bots that look for email addresses on the internet won’t find yours. :-)
LAO
@WaterGirl: I am an idiot. I didn’t even think of that. God lord, I am ridiculous.
Brachiator
@Bill E Pilgrim:
Why, it just ain’t natural. Cats and dogs and dinosaurs and peoples living together.
It’s gotta be sad when these kids ever attend a school or college that uses real science.
John M. Burt
@Punchy: Don’t let’s be bigoted, mmmkay?
Roger Moore
@Matt McIrvin:
I don’t see any of those premises that are likely correct.
LAO
@sharl: I hate these guys. Rubio’s policy positions are poisonous. What exactly is the benefit to democrats? If Rubio wins the nomination and then the general election — we are still just as screwed,
kc
Maybe he’s been terrified of Scalia all these years.
Iowa Old Lady
I read about the Republicans Party imploding and I try to unpack that phrase and see what implosion looks like the day after the election. Frankly I’m not sure it means anything different than it meant with Romney and McCain. They say oh we have to change and then go back to destroying the states and losing the WH.
gogol's wife
Bummer — Cute Overload is going out of business.
Calouste
@Calouste: Btw, I’m looking forward to the steam coming out of Rubio’s ears when during the next debate Trump puts him down with something along the lines of: “We’ve had 14 primaries, I have won 12 of them, Ted has won 2 of them, you have won zero. I’m 400 delegates ahead of you and I am leading you by 20% in the polls in your own state. What are you still doing here?!?”
John M. Burt
@Elizabelle: I’ve been saying for years that our best hope for a healthy political culture is for the Stage IV Republican party to die quickly, allowing the Democrats to resume their traditional position as the nation’s conservative party, and for a new national party to appear to their left.
Paint the electoral map blue then start painting it green.
Original Lee
@John Cole: I applaud your wordplay, sir, and would have done so sooner if I hadn’t been in a meeting without access to this site.
Better?
JPL
@CONGRATULATIONS!: I have a friend who votes republican, and she’s horrified by Trump. She blamed the media, and I agreed. I then gave my reasoning. Fox and Friends encouraged Trump, as long as he was degrading the office of President Obama. Now that he’s eating his, own, they are concerned. fk em
Fair Economist
@sharl:
I don’t think Rubio as a nominee is better for the country than Trump as a nominee, but a more heated insult-driven campaign is. Since Trump seems to be on his way to a decisive win, scrambling up the campaign a big is a bonus. A contested convention would be ideal, if a stretch at this point.
Adam L Silverman
@WaterGirl: I can pull both when I get home about 3:30 EST and do a digital intro under my admin authorizations. Give it about an hour.
JPL
@LAO: SiubhanDuinne and I should go and cheer you on. Actually we wouldn’t cheer, but good luck.
LAO
@Adam L Silverman: I assume this is for me. If so thanks. I am prepared to destroy the “new” email, I posted earlier. Like a moron. Because I don’t think about stuff. . .
Mnemosyne
@Betty Cracker:
Every alcoholic/addict knows they won’t hit rock bottom until people stop enabling their bad behavior. Why, exactly, are Democrats morally obligated to enable the Republicans?
Calouste
@Iowa Old Lady: This is what an implosion looks like. Of course, the Conservatives were back in power in a little over decade.
Adam L Silverman
@LAO: yep, I’ll hook you all up in about an hour.
JPL
@Mnemosyne: Is it because only one party is concerned about democracy?
hmmm
randy khan
@Bobby Thomson:
I don’t know that I would say that Thomas is smarter than Scalia was, but I agree completely on the framing. Thomas has his own reasons for his silent act (which he has provided on at least a couple of occasions, although my recollection is that the explanation varies from time to time), but the silence doesn’t tell me much at all about his intellect. And, as someone noted above, the question he asked today was, in fact, a useful question, not to mention consistent with his ideology.
currants
@SiubhanDuinne: Yeah–love it!
Iowa Old Lady
@Calouste: I hope so! It’s hard to believe an election could go that way this year. Maybe I hate to hope because I’m afraid of being disappointed.
LAO
@JPL: Why thank you. I am actively attempting to limit my potential embarrassment. My client’s family lives in NY but trial counsel plans to be there. And I have 3 co-counsel. Its going to be a real shit show, Mainly, because for the first time in my appellate practice — I believe, with my whole heart — that my client was wrongly convicted. And as a result (at the age of 70+) she received a 168-month sentence, So quite certain, I will be terrible during oral argument.
SiubhanDuinne
@Bill E Pilgrim:
Ha!
p.a.
@kc:
Thomas has been under a Scalia voodoo spell.
Amir Khalid
@sharl:
Beinart seems to be arguing that Democrats should save the Republican party from itself. Imagine a British pundit arguing, in the midst of a Conservative leadership crisis, that Labour should intervene to save the Tories from electing a Berlusconi-type leader. I don’t see why it’s up to Democrats to do that, or even how they could do it.
Steve in the ATL
@randy khan: I’ve met and conversed with Clarence Thomas a couple of times at bar events. He’s definitely not stupid, even if he is an ethically challenged rightwing extremist and corporate whore. To be fair, that’s also an apt description of his late buddy Antonin.
LAO
@Adam L Silverman: New email account deleted. Thanks so much Adam.
M31
nice title
next time I’m hoping for the even better “RIP Wingnut” title
LAO
@WaterGirl: Thanks for your intervention. I appreciate your working to make people on the internet less stupid. Thanks again.
Sad_Dem
@Immanentize: However tempting it may be for an attorney to answer a judge’s question with “Yes, there are several instances in which…*clear proof*…*obvious example*…*etc.*, you dipshiat,” most of the more highly regarded law schools teach their students not to do so.
Seanly
@Bill E Pilgrim:
I like my stepfather’s version better – “All you’ve done since you got here was bitch, bitch, bitch.”
Another (unrelated) favorite saying of his – “Everybody loves you like they love cold coffee and wet toilet paper.” – that’s my opinion of the conservative justices.
LAO
@Sad_Dem: The first time I said “With all due respect, Your Honor” — in state court, the judge stared down at me for what felt like a half an hour (but was probably 30 seconds) and said — “counselor, I don’t appreciate being told to fuck off in my own courtroom.” I shit myself. I have never said it again. I go with “Yes, but. . . ” now.
cleek
@John Cole:
#PleaseClap!
Peale
@Amir Khalid: It’s kind of like asking Obama to gut social security and not run for reelection for the sake of unity and the good of the country.
Botsplainer, Cryptofascist Tool of the Oppressor Class
@LAO:
I get a lot of latitude in disrespecting judges, but then again, my office is highly political AND we moneybombed a judicial candidate pretty hard a couple of years ago – it was about a $35000 delivery. As a result, we get leeway.
Steve in the ATL
@LAO:
Ha! I know a few judges down here who would say the same thing. I’ve also heard “And how much respect am I due, counselor?”
LAO
@Botsplainer, Cryptofascist Tool of the Oppressor Class: Are you hiring? lol
Adam L Silverman
@LAO: Email sent to you and Big R. Good luck!
LAO
@Adam L Silverman: Thank you.
Adam L Silverman
@LAO: Happy to help. You all have fun!
WaterGirl
@LAO: You’re not an idiot, your mind is on other things, like your court case.
LAO
@WaterGirl: My first boss always wondered what a nice, ivy-league, jewish girl was doing as a criminal defense attorney. About 4 months in the job, he turns to me with a look of total shock on his face and says — “you really think like a criminal” and stopped (1) saying I was nice or (2) questioning how I came to be a defense attorney. I feel, based on today, I have really lost my touch. lol.
Anyway, Adam did his thing — so I appreciate your suggestion/efforts.
Adam L Silverman
@LAO: Someday, and that day may never come, I’ll call upon you to do a service for me…
(couldn’t resist)
LAO
@Adam L Silverman: I began my career in a “so called” mob firm. No lie it was fun!
WaterGirl
@LAO: You are most welcome! Happy to help.
LAO
@Steve in the ATL:
Adam L Silverman
@LAO: if you ever need an expert witness on terrorism, religion, extremism, (some) military and governmental matters, ritual and/or religious violence – let me know.
LAO
@Adam L Silverman: Serious response: I have largely given up trial work and am mostly focused on (1) appellate practice and (2) ghost writing for lazy lawyers. I would absolutely reach out to you and give your name to other defense attorneys working terrorist cases. Here — it is mostly CJA work, so I understand the “rates” are not great.
Ruckus
@NonyNony:
I thought that that was an obvious rhetorical question.
The puppet master is gone, the puppet now has to move his own strings.
I'll be Frank
Misdemeanors never result in any jail time? I’d think that time in jail would represent a severe restriction on your rights.
prob50
@John Cole: What happened, John? Somebody put chewing gum in your oatmeal this morning? Your comment #21 succeeded in hi-jacking your own thread. Now THAT’S got to be kind of annoying. But nobody’s prefect, right?
edit: well, I just saw your mea culpa back around #50-something, so I guess you musta passed that gum at some point.
Ruckus
@CONGRATULATIONS!:
but it really pisses them off because they EXPECT that we’ll come in and clean up their mess.
Haven’t dems been doing this for some time? The last 2 dem presidents have fixed lots of crap the repubs before them left smelling up and staining the living room carpet.
prob50
@p.a.:
Hey, speak for yourself.
PurpleGirl
So, Mr. Justice Thomas… You’d give a gun back to a person convicted of domestic violence. How do you respond when that person ultimately uses that gun to kill their spouse/partner?
Just asking.
rea
Can you give me another area where a misdemeanor violation suspends a constitutional right?
Every single misdemeanor conviction I ever heard of suspends a constitutional right. You have a constitutional right not to be jailed. You have a constitutional right not to be fined. You have a constitutional right not to be compelled to adhere to terms of probation. You can be deprived of those rights, of course, pursuant to due process of law. Same with gun rights.
First question in 10 years, and it’s a stupid one.
Bloix
Actually, it was an astute question and it may change the outcome of the case. And what is the cause that Thomas is championing? A supposed right of convicted spouse abusers to own guns. That’s what woke him up.
“Thomas’ line of questioning completely reversed the court’s apparent view of the case. Before he spoke up, Voisine seemed likely to lose, as a majority of the justices poked holes in his complicated argument… After Thomas’ questions, at least one liberal—Breyer—appeared somewhat enticed by the proposition that the court could rule in Voisine’s favor to avoid opening the Pandora’s box that is the Second Amendment.”
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/02/29/clarence_thomas_asked_a_question_from_the_bench_to_defend_gun_rights.html
rea
@John Cole: We are not worthy, Mr. Cole, we are not worthy.
J R in WV
@Bill E Pilgrim:
Hey, hey, hey!!! That creationism is over in Kentucky, not here in W Va.
Our legislature has been Democratic since about 1932, completely, for over 80 years. Now, suddenly, the Republicans are in charge, one hopes temporarily. Since the change over was so instantly sudden, they are going for every wing-nut ALEC-written bill there ever was.
I hope their insanity will cause their overlordship to be short. They’ve killed off the concealed carry permits system, just gonna let everyone do it. Stupid. At least before the county sheriff could refuse a CCW permit to loons and criminals. And our carry permits were reciprocal in many other states, so I could take a target pistol to North Carolina to shoot with friends. Now I probably can’t take any firearm anywhere outside West Virginia.
Stupid. To take a step their 2nd amendment theocracy demands, they have destroyed a great part of the advantages the permit system provided. Dumb AND Stupid!
They’re also going to destroy the public school system, if possible, though that includes constitutional problems for them. The WVa Constitution requires good public schools for all students.
They’re trying to introduce their bogus Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which pretends to restore religious freedom already protected by the federal 1st amendment. But since that isn’t their holy Second Amendment, they can’t read or understand the First Amendment. So pissed off!
But we don’t have a Creationism Museum here, and that’s a good thing. Maybe they’ll start taking school buses full of kids all the way over to the Creationism Museum in Kentucky? Hope not, what a waste of good educational money!
J R in WV
@LAO:
I don’t expect too many of us B-Jers will trample on your privacy via that email addr. I haven’t been slammed yet by letting mine out, but then, I’m not a lawyer, either.
LAO
@J R in WV: wasn’t worried about BJErs.
WaterGirl started talking about bots and I panicked! Lol. I deleted the account, which I opened for this purpose. Adam was kind enough to electronically introduce us, so all’s well that ends well.
J R in WV
@LAO:
True that about bots. I get some odd spam, yahoo has good filters so I don’t even look there often. I did find something from DKos among the others from Prince Ngo’toko about the estate I’m entitled to, and Miss Minsky who wants to marry me and has an estate herself she will share if I bring her to America and marry her, etc.
Sounds like your legal career started out interesting, but for a fellow lawyer to dis you for being able to understand the criminal mind, that’s just wrong! On either side of the bar that’s a valuable attribute. I’m surprised a criminal defense lawyer would say such a thing. Or even a bond lawyer to a defense lawyer.
LAO
@J R in WV: I worked at his firm for over 8 years, it wasn’t really a diss. It really surprised him because it wasn’t his expectation. He had some preconceived notions about me that I quickly dispelled. We still have a great relationship and work in the same suite and work on cases together.
trnc
Perhaps Eisenstein could have asked him to clarify if his question was limited to rights explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, or also included inalienable rights not explicitly mentioned. Also, she could possibly have stated that the question was irrelevant since the question before the court was not the constitutionality of the ban, but whether the plaintiffs were subject to federal law.
trnc
@Bloix:
It would have been an astute question if it was related to the question before the court instead of the question the court explicitly decided not to address.
By asking hobbyhorse questions regarding the issue NOT being addressed, Thomas appears to be engaging in judicial activism.
Steve in the ATL
@trnc:
I’ve never argued before SCOTUS, but I’m pretty sure this would be a really bad idea….
LAO
@Steve in the ATL: yeah. Bad idea jeans.
sherparick
@M31: That’s what I thought. Coincidentally, a big story in the DC area on Sunday and Monday was death of a woman police officer on her first day on the job when she responded to domestic dispute call. The man shot two other police officers and killed his wife before surrendering. I would say that a misdemeanor offense involving violence is a compelling reason to take away a person’s right to bear arms. I also would respond, yes Justice Thomas, misdemeanor stalking convictions allow the state to limit an individual’s free speech rights and right to assemble near the residence or work place of past and potential current victims.