Posted on 03/23/2016 9:35:19 AM PDT by reaganaut1
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is known for his silence during oral arguments. He has explained that he doesn’t think he learns much about a case that hasn’t already been covered in the briefs for the contending parties plus the numerous amicus briefs that explore many more aspects of the case. He prefers to listen and allow the lawyers to argue without further interruption.
Justice Thomas had not asked a question during oral arguments since 2006 when, during the arguments in Voisine v. United States on February 29, he posed a question to the government’s counsel, Assistant to the Solicitor General Ilana Eisenstein.
Immediately, the anti-Thomas press, always eager to portray the justice as a clueless incompetent (after all, he rejects most of the leftist notions about the role of government), indulged in nasty headlines such as “It Speaks!” Imagine the furor if a leftist icon were called “it.”
Exactly what is Voisine about and what did Justice Thomas ask?
The case deals with a seemingly dry question of statutory interpretation: Does a misdemeanor crime that requires only a showing of recklessness qualify as a crime of domestic violence under 18 U.S. Code Sections 921 (a)(33)(A) and 922 (g)(9)?
That latter part of the U.S. criminal code is known at the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban, a.k.a the Lautenberg Amendment, signed into law in 1996 by President Clinton. It makes it a felony for anyone who has been convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor ever to have anything to do with firearms: shipping or transporting them, owning or using them, even possessing ammunition.
One strike and you’re out under this law.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Because powers know that an unarmed populace is controllable. Take away the 2nd and all other amendments fall soon after. The 2nd is the most important IMO.
THEY'RE LEGISLATED AGAINST !
I'm sure this is what you meant.
Justice Thomas is one of the few rational Justices on the Court. People like Kagan and Sotomayer and Roberts and Kennedy and Ginsberg couldn’t think on a higher plane than one of Hitler’s Brownshirts. They are all programmed and controlled-—pure evil and all should be impeached.
What???? Thomas writes the tightest, best reasoned and most concise opinions of anyone on the Court.
If you mean a slaughter could come, I think you’re right.
Regimes that gun-grab inevitably find that this makes crime worse, not better, but the dirty little secret is that they don’t really care that much about the crime. In fact they like the way the crime makes the people dependent on the officials.
HUGE implications here.
America has a great record.
How is it we might allow evil to digress and void what has worked for nearly 2000 years?
WAKE UP AMERICA !!!
STAND TALL
STAND STRONG!
Praise God FROM WHOM ALL BLESSINGS FLOW ... AMEN!
But he’s not a Lefty, and therefore must be stupid, or at least ignorant of the so-called “facts”.
The left keeps claiming that abortion and Obamacare are “settled law”, therefore no one should question either one. The 2nd amendment is also settled law.
In addition to 2nd Amendment problems with this code, note that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to police domestic violence issues.
It will simply just force folks to hid their guns, to make it much more easy to do so.
Because, your honor, once they’ve eviscerated the Second Amendment they can get serious about eviscerating the First Amendment.
Progressives have subverted the Constitution to the point where the population thinks it’s OK to remove guns from private hands because Progressives and their minions are afraid of an armed populace.
IMHO
Why don’t we suspend the first amendment for people convicted of a misdemeanor?
Free men have the right to bear arms, slaves do not.
President Trump needs to pack the court with 13 rabid pro-2nd amendment SCOTUS justices. There is no limit on the number of justices SCOTUS is to have mentioned in the Constitution. Used to be six.
My question goes a step further.
How can the government take away a right the government didn't create?
Would the question; is the right inalienable or alienable pivot on the meaning of the word "is"?
Is is is or is is ain't?
Yes is is with one constraint:
Is is never is becuz
Once you've said is is is wuz!
If you read the transcript, after Justice Thomas' questions, Justice Breyer lays out how they'll avoid the entire issue...
JUSTICE BREYER: Stop you at the first point. Your argument on the first point is that she did not raise the constitutional question. She said in order to avoid a constitutional question, we should decide it in thus such and such a way.
So one answer would be, well, maybe so. We aren't facing the constitutional question. We are simply facing the question of what Congress intended. And if this does raise a constitutional question, so be it. And then there will, in a future case, come up with that question. So we or our point is, we don't have to decide that here.
So, in order to avoid having to actually follow the Constitution, they'll punt, and force someone to spend the years that it takes to get yet another case to the court.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.