Is Justice Clarence Thomas taking over Scalia's mantle of most pro-2nd Amendment...?

[Aim1]

Justice Thomas dissented along with Scalia on why SCOTUS should have taken the case of Friedman v. City of Highland Park.


He made statements such as:

Thomas noted that even within the Seventh Circuit’s considerations, justices admitted that certain “assault weapons” make formidable self-defense weapons and may be a good choice for that application because they are “less dangerous per shot than larger caliber pistols or revolvers.” Yet the Seventh Circuit upheld the “assault weapons” ban anyway, by recognizing that Heller “holds that a law banning the possession of handguns in the home … violates” the Second Amendment.

Thomas criticized the majority SCOTUS decision to allow the Seventh Circuit’s ruling to stand, suggesting the SCOTUS action runs the risk of allowing the Seventh Circuit to “[relegate] the Second Amendment to a second-class right.” And he pointed to an even greater existential risk arising from allowing “assault weapons” bans to stand when he wrote, “If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.”

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...rence-thomas-in-opposing-assault-weapons-ban/



He hasn't asked a question in over 10 years. He finally did break his silence today, and on a gun case. (However, it's probably not the right gun case because these 2 defendents will probably lose).



http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/justice_thomas_asks_multiple_questions_in_scotus_arguments

Breaking his 10-year silence, Justice Thomas asks multiple questions in SCOTUS arguments on gun law

POSTED FEB 29, 2016 10:25 AM CST

BY DEBRA CASSENS WEISS

It’s been 10 years and one week since Justice Clarence Thomas asked a question during Supreme Court oral arguments.

Thomas broke his silence on Monday, report the Associated Press, CNN, HuffPost Politics, Courthouse News Service and tweets by Bloomberg BNA Supreme Court reporter Kimberly Robinson. Thomas asked multiple questions in a case considering the reach of a federal law that bars people who have been convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence from owning guns.None of the other justices seemed surprised, according to Robinson.

Thomas asked whether any constitutional right, besides a Second Amendment right, could be suspended based on a misdemeanor. He addressed his questions to Justice Department lawyer Ilana Eisenstein in the case Voisine v. United States.

I agree that no Constitutional right should be suspended for a misdemeanor conviction.


Could Justice Thomas take over Justice Scalia's mantle of 2nd Amendment protector?


This sounds familar, my grandma never really talked, but when my grandfather passed away she talks a ton. So, maybe he just over-powered her in the talking area.

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

If someone had already asked a question you wanted an answer to would you repeat it just to hear your own voice after already hearing the answer to the question? I believe Justice Thomas' beliefs regarding the Constitution mirrored those of Antonin Scalia and since Scalia was an aggressive interrogator Justice Thomas probably did not feel the need to be in the spotlight. That is my take anyway.

 

[old lady new shooter]

What is the difference between misdemeanor domestic violence and felony domestic violence?

 

[Jeff H]

What is the difference between misdemeanor domestic violence and felony domestic violence?

State laws vary, but in some places it is an automatic felony on the 2nd conviction of DV.



http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/is-domestic-violence-a-felony.html

 

[Vern Humphrey]

If someone had already asked a question you wanted an answer to would you repeat it just to hear your own voice after already hearing the answer to the question? I believe Justice Thomas' beliefs regarding the Constitution mirrored those of Antonin Scalia and since Scalia was an aggressive interrogator Justice Thomas probably did not feel the need to be in the spotlight. That is my take anyway.

Justice Thomas was the grandson of a poor black sharecropper and grew up speaking Gullah, an extreme dialect of English.

His grandfather sent him to Catholic schools to get an education, and he was ashamed of his Gullah accent, so learned to simply sit still and listen in class.

That is how he, personally explains his habit of only listening and seldom asking questions.

 

[230RN]

Had to look it up:

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

Wait, wait. You mean someone brought up with English as a more-or-less second language can actually understand the Second Amendment?

Holy cow !

Terry, 230RN

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Wait, wait. You mean someone brought up with English as a more-or-less second language can actually understand the Second Amendment?

Yep -- and some people brought up speaking impeccable English cannot understand it -- or rather refuse to understand it.

 

[Nanook]

It's those pesky commas. They confuse some people.

Also, some are confused by "well regulated" which in the vernacular of the time meant in proper working order, not regulated like we know it today which is quite different.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

At the time the Constitution was written, commas were primarily elocutionary, not syntactical. That is, they were an aid to reading aloud, not to changing or altering meaning.

That's why the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution real so well -- when you read them aloud, you are being guided by a man who was a master of public speaking.

 

[harrygunner]

Feels like Justice Thomas is speaking, asking questions Scalia can no longer ask. I'll always be impressed with Scalia's deep historical perspective and scholastic acumen. Glad Thomas is there.

 

[JR47]

If we allow a misdemeanor to stand as an exclusionary reason for suspension of a Constitutional Right, what's to stop ALL Rights or even Privileges from being similarly controlled?

There is a move afoot to restore felons voting privileges after they have served their sentence, no matter the cause, so, how could one believe that a misdemeanor offense would somehow prevent another right forever?

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

It just occurred to me; If they wish to restore felon's rights will that include their Second Amendment Right?

 

[230RN]

^

It just occurred to me; If they wish to restore felon's rights will that include their Second Amendment Right?

It's been suggested on many gun boards as well as elsewhere that if you have been deemed suitable (by completion of the sentence or for whatever other reasons) to rejoin society, all rights should be restored, including those attendent to the Second Amendment.

But, if you aren't "deemed suitable," you should remain in the pokey with your rights restricted.

In other words, this theory goes, if you are allowed to walk the streets and aren't a fugitive, you are a full citizen, with full citizen's rights.

Remember, they used to return a prisoner's guns on release from prison --at least in the cowboy movies I used to watch )

The usual hangup is in the "deemed suitable" part. Some suggest that if further offenses are commited after release, the next sentence should be automatically doubled from the last sentence, and other variations on that concept --such as re-adding the old sentence to the new sentence, and so forth until if enough offenses have occurred, it's essentially a life sentence... similar to the "three strikes, you're out" of some jurisdictions.

Some say yea, some say nay to this kind of legal structure, and indeed it needs to be developed a certain amount to approach practicality.

Or at least thought about seriously.

We do have egregious examples of rights being permanently removed for non-violent offenses as noted in this thread. In a sense, essentially a life sentence for things like getting caught peeing in the alley behind the beer joint: "public exposure."

As the saying goes, "I feel so much safer now that Martha Stewart can no longer possess a firearm." Yet that's what happened for a non-violent offense involving the stock market. (Not that she really cares, but...)

Terry, 230RN

 

[X-Rap]

I think Judge Thomas probably does feel obligated to pick up and carry Scalias mantle as well as his own now that they are a man short. He doesn't get an extra vote but he can sure add his voice.

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

Terry: My question was intended somewhat tongue in cheek as my personal belief as to the motivation of those supporting the idea of restoring voting rights is simply to have another potential loyal voter pool for a certain political party as they are alienating most of the working class.

 

[ATN082268]

If we allow a misdemeanor to stand as an exclusionary reason for suspension of a Constitutional Right, what's to stop ALL Rights or even Privileges from being similarly controlled?

As depressing as it sounds, I doubt many politicians or judges care so long as it supports their own personal (non-legal) position on a particular issue. The U.S. Supreme Court, for example, barely affirmed the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights was actually an individual right. Can you imagine the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that Freedom of Speech or Religion was a collective right?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Feels like Justice Thomas is speaking, asking questions Scalia can no longer ask. I'll always be impressed with Scalia's deep historical perspective and scholastic acumen. Glad Thomas is there.

Too bad we can't clone him.

 

[Red Wind]

I believe Justice Samuel Alito is right up there with Justice Thomas as being a strong RKBA advocate.

 

[barnbwt]

Can you imagine the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that Freedom of Speech or Religion was a collective right?

Yes. And they will, if they get away with this oxymoronic farce called "collective rights" with regards to the RKBA. Rights cannot belong to the group since the group does not need them; the group has the power to dictate the terms of governance, after all. Nor does the State need them, the State being a mere organ/mouthpiece of the group (in ideal circumstances, and in the end). There are no words to properly describe the self-evident stupidity of the notion that the mob needs a 'right' to arm up & run rampant, let alone the even more brainless assertions that our fore fathers thought to declare the State could posses its own arms (for one thing it's literally impossible since the State is composed of individuals, second, much like the group/mob, the State never needs permission to wield force if granted the authority to do so by its citizens).

The notion of group rights makes no sense at all if you try to imagine how they could be implemented. Like for instance, of one group requiring constitutional protection from the majority. What, we're to believe that the RKBA was meant to prevent broad swathes of citizens --say, African Americans or Japanese-Americans-- from being forcibly disarmed by an abusive majority? Too bad, such disarmament was historically justified explicitly using individual-level concerns (applied to the group at large) like crime or sabotage, and would be justified under 'collective rights' theory. Rights can only be protected at the individual level*, and it's a good thing we still have a couple people on the High Court who recognize that. Otherwise, we will inevitably fall into some contradictory tyranny where The Proletariat officially has unfettered freedom, but any one person acting in contradiction to it (as determined by the State) may be restrained.

The only people espousing "collective rights" are the same people who have always denied rights themselves even exist, independent of the State.

*I'm talking fundamental "life, liberty, happiness" type rights, here. States' rights are a political architecture within a larger governing framework; they are merely one of many means towards the true end of the whole apparatus, which as Jefferson declared, was specifically to protect the natural/human/inherent rights of individual citizens.

TCB

 

[barnbwt]

My question was intended somewhat tongue in cheek as my personal belief as to the motivation of those supporting the idea of restoring voting rights is simply to have another potential loyal voter pool for a certain political party as they are alienating most of the working class.

It is exactly this; the 'restoration movement' is a bald-faced effort at bolstering the pool of impoverished/dependent African Americans in the urban centers of states which are more or less drifting in the opposite political direction at the state level. Merely a ploy, as there is no effort at rehabilitating any of their other rights, just this one which is seen as immediately useful to the machine bosses. No gun rights for non-violent offenders, no talk of normalizing custody statuses, no talk of loosening parole restrictions upon release, and certainly no talk of dismantling the various background check/registry/reporting schemes which (whether you think they are necessary or not) are directly responsible for keeping released offenders as half-free second class citizens lacking a majority of the options available to 'whole' freemen. Not even talk of improving the legal recourse options for offenders in these areas.

I guess it's just getting too costly & difficult to reanimate the dead for elections, anymore, so these types of measures are required to prop up the regime...

TCB

 

[hso]

Too soon to tell, but someone has to .

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I believe Justice Samuel Alito is right up there with Justice Thomas as being a strong RKBA advocate.

Now we just need three more.

The thing about Scalia is he was a "Literalist." He actually believed <gasp> that the Constitution MEANS WHAT IT SAYS.

 

[barnbwt]

The thing about Scalia is he was a "Literalist." He actually believed <gasp> that the Constitution MEANS WHAT IT SAYS.

They all think that. Actually, they know it. Ruth Bader Ginsberg did not graduate & get where she is, by truly believing 1+1=bananna. But, the ancient rules governing how they construct their opinions require them to represent novel/nonsensical views through previously existing language/precedent, which they all know does not support them. Which is where are the semantics & 'jiggery-pokery' Scalia hated come in. If they can't do that, they're stuck with the proverbial 'butt-pull' and looking like fools making it up as they go along (rather than being truly justified, or even just adhering to an ideology). The sad thing is, this jurisprudential (word?) misbehavior encourages more of the same, and while satisfying to the short-term wants of the judges, ultimately erodes the respect and relevance of the court itself (case in point, the Obamacare rulings, which basically illustrated that the court is no longer capable of stopping all legislation, provided it is too big to fail --rather scary when you consider how many 2000+ page bills & trillion-dollar packages are now the norm)

The difference between Scalia and some of the other justices, is that he believed the original meaning of the founding documents was important & should be respected; that the desires and wishes of the present should submit to the intentions of the past. Rather presumptuous of Jefferson/Madison/et al if you think about it (), but this principle is kind of the whole point of a Constitution(al Republic), and they did at least deign to include a mechanism for making changes if obviously required (to 3/4 of the states/etc)

TCB

 

[Vern Humphrey]

They make it up as they go, and what we really need is an amendment that says "The Constitution and laws shall be interpreted by their literal wording and the debates at the time of adoption. No other method of interpretation may be employed, and any court ruling contrary to this amendment is invalid on its face."

 

[orionengnr]

They all think that.

Not at all. Some merely torture the manipulate language to suit their beliefs.
That is how we end up with "reasonable restrictions", eminent domain, and ObamaCare being a tax, no, wait, it's a penalty; no, it's not...but it's still "Constitutional".
Nothing "literal" in those interpretations...