But of course. It’s a living document, after all.
The mantle has been passed.
LOL! Pertinent question. Kinda like a restraining order may prohibit your ability to buy a firearm? Does if stop the restrainee from buying booze? Or a knife? Or a car? Or a chainsaw? Or a baseball bat? Load of crap? You betcha.
That’s a great question.
WOW, Clarence Thomas speaks !!
How long ago has it been since that happened? He probably has no choice after Scalia died.
The baton has been passed
With a 4-4 USSC appeals court decisions will all stand and the opportunity to rush up a bunch of cases through friendly courts to overturn things like the 1st and 2nd Amendments, at least in the jurisdictions of those lower courts should occasion some alarm.
Ping
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
I see an invitation to a TX ranch in his future.
Don’t let me down, Justice Thomas.
Wow. Yeah, it was good. Why in the world didn’t I ever think of that question?
Here's the entire exchange...(any formatting errors are mine- I just did a quick copy/paste and paragraph markers. I haven't actually read through the entire argument yet.
JUSTICE THOMAS: Ms. Eisenstein, one question.
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?
MS. EISENSTEIN: Your Honor, I I'm thinking about that, but I think that the the question is not as I understand Your Honor's question, the culpability necessarily of the act or in terms of the offense
JUSTICE THOMAS: Well, I'm I'm looking at the you're saying that recklessness is sufficient to trigger a violation misdemeanor violation of domestic conduct that results in a lifetime ban on possession of a gun, which, at least as of now, is still a constitutional right.
MS. EISENSTEIN: Your Honor, to address JUSTICE THOMAS: Can you think of another constitutional right that can be suspended based upon a misdemeanor violation of a State law?
MS. EISENSTEIN: Your Honor, while I can't think of specifically triggered by a misdemeanor violation, other examples, for example, in the First Amendment context, have allowed for suspension or limitation of a right to free speech or even free association in contexts where there is a compelling interest and risks associated in some cases less than a compelling interest under intermediate scrutiny.
JUSTICE THOMAS: I'm this is a how long is this suspension of the right to own a firearm?
MS. EISENSTEIN: Your Honor, the right is suspended indefinitely.
JUSTICE THOMAS: Okay. So can you think of a First Amendment suspension or a suspension of a First Amendment right that is permanent?
MS. EISENSTEIN: Your Honor, it's not necessarily permanent as to the individual, but it may be permanent as to a particular harm. And here Congress decided to intervene at the first instance that an individual is convicted of battering their family members because it it relied on substantial and welldocumented evidence that those individuals pose a a longterm and substantial
JUSTICE THOMAS: So in each of these cases had did any of the defendants, or in this case Petitioners, use a weapon against a family member?
MS. EISENSTEIN: In neither case did they, but these Petitioners
JUSTICE THOMAS: So that the again, the suspension is not directly related to the use of the weapon. It is a suspension that is actually indirectly related or actually unrelated. It's just a family member's involved in a misdemeanor violation; therefore, a constitutional right is suspended.
MS. EISENSTEIN: Yes, Your Honor, but I believe that in terms of the the relationship between Congress's decision to try to prevent domestic gun violence and its means of doing so
JUSTICE THOMAS: Even if that if even if that violence is unrelated to the use the possession of a gun?
MS. EISENSTEIN: Well, Your Honor, I think the studies that Congress relied upon in formulating the the misdemeanor crime of domestic violence ban didn't were directly about the use of a gun because what they showed is that individuals who have previously been battered their spouses, pose up to a sixfold greater risk of killing, by a gun, their family member.
JUSTICE THOMAS: Well, let's let's say that a publisher is reckless about the use of children, and what could be considered indecent displace and that that triggers a violation of, say, a hypothetical law against the use of children in these ads, and let's say it's a misdemeanor violation. Could you suspend that publisher's right to ever publish again?
MS. EISENSTEIN: Your Honor, I don't think you could suspend the right to ever publish again, but I think that you could limit, for example, the manner and means by which publisher
JUSTICE THOMAS: So how is that different from suspending your Second Amendment right?
MS. EISENSTEIN: Your Honor, I think that in terms of a the compelling purpose that was identified here, which was the prevention of gun violence and the individual nature of the of the underlying offense, so here this isn't a misdemeanor crime directed at any person at large. These are misdemeanor batteries directed at members specified members of the of that individual's family. Congress
JUSTICE THOMAS: Would you have a better case if this were a gun crime?
MS. EISENSTEIN: Your Honor, I think it would be perhaps a better case, except that the evidence that Congress relied on and and that the courts below that have addressed the Second Amendment concerns that Your Honor is highlighting have even gone into a more robust analysis of the the evidence that ties initial crimes of battery to future gun violence. That evidence is extremely strong. And Congress recognized that this was a recurring escalating offense.
Petitioners are good examples of this. While they didn't reach, thankfully, the point where they were able to reach for a firearm and were prohibited from having a firearm under Federal law, they have each been convicted multiple times of domestic violence offenses and possess the firearms in close proximity. So these aren't individuals who had longago convictions and are suffering from that ban. Congress also contemplated exactly the lifetime nature of the ban that Your Honor suggested and left it in States' hands to resolve that by allowing States to expunge or pardon convictions in cases where an individual either petitions to do so or in some States as a matter of course.
So so I understand Your Honor's concern that that this is a potential infringement of individual's Second Amendment rights, but I believe that Congress has identified a compelling purpose and has found a reasonable means of achieving that purpose.
Stepping Up, thank you Justice Thomas, we are relying on you.
Has someone in the kitchen been slipping LSD into the SCOTUS soup for the past 50 years ?
What is this case about?