Clarence Thomas shocks supreme court by ending 10-year oral argument silence

[Eugene]

Source: The Guardian and agencies

Clarence Thomas shocks supreme court by ending 10-year oral argument silence

Jessica Glenza in New York and agencies
Monday 29 February 2016 19.45 GMT

There were gasps at the US supreme court on Monday when Justice Clarence Thomas broke a 10-year silence, questioning an attorney for the first time since 22 February 2006.

The surprise inquiry from the conservative justice came in a case about Americans’ right to bear arms. The court was hearing oral arguments from a government attorney, who was defending a federal law that can bar domestic violence convicts from owning firearms.

Lawyer Ilana Eisenstein, an attorney for the US solicitor general’s office, was about to leave the lectern after answering a barrage of questions from other justices, when Thomas apparently caught her by surprise, asking whether the violation of any other law “suspends a constitutional right”.

Thomas’s question provoked an audible response from the audience, and caused Chief Justice John Roberts to “(swivel) his head in evident surprise”, according to one reporter present.

The justice asked several questions about constitutional gun rights, which no other justice had asked about. He said that the law being challenged allows someone convicted of a misdemeanor assault charge to receive a lifetime gun possession ban, “which at least as of now results in suspension of a constitutional right”.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/feb/29/clarence-thomas-supreme-court-asks-question-10-year-silence

[flamin lib]

1. With Scalia gone somebody had to say something stupid to fill the gap . . .nt

[sarisataka]

5. Why is it stupid?

I support the DV law and hope it upheld. Yet I have to admit it is a valid question.

[TupperHappy]

2. Well, what is the answer then?

What other misdemeanor conviction results in a lifetime ban in exercising a constitutional right?

Its a perfectly valid question.

[Eleanors38]

4. This is about gun control. The Guardian don't need no stinkin'answers.

[theatre goon]

3. Seems a pretty reasonable question, to me...

...considering the subject and the venue.

Isn't that part of the purpose of the Supreme Court, to consider the ramifications of legislation?

I'll certainly admit to not knowing this was the first time he ever asked a question. Learn something new every day...

[ileus]

6. Excellent question...what was the answer???

[bluedigger]

7. He must have lost a bet with Fat Tony.