Justice Thomas speaks

[Glenn E. Meyer]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/clarence-thomas-supreme-court/471582/

This is rather unusual. The analysis is that:

1. Without Scalia, he feels that he might have to champion the positions that they both held.

2. He feels quite strongly on the basic issue of gun rights being fundamental - which the others clearly don't.

The issue is the permanent denial of a right due to a bad action.

 

[pnac]

I think Justice Thomas asked a legitimate guestion, and one I've never been able to get a straight answer on since Lautenberg got his bill passed.

Regardless, whatever his reason for asking, I'm glad he did. Maybe people will start to look at the Lautenberg Ammendment and guestion it. I've always respected and admired Justice Thomas.

 

[spacecoast]

Very legitimate question, and I think it perfectly highlighted the extreme nature of the law. Permanently banning possession due to this specific misdemeanor assumes that an occurrence of domestic violence (even when intoxicated) is indicative of a permanent condition - that is, nobody can ever pay their debt to society and move on. I think it's hard to make a blanket statement like that.

 

[Branko]

I would consider that a life-long suspension of any right is not reasonable to apply as a blanket rule.

In my country, there is a very useful mechanism of "rehabilitation", which means that, after the sentence has been served, and after a period of time has passed, provided good behaviour the criminal record will be "cleared" for all purposes and all rights fully reinstated (provided there are no special safety measures in force; eg. you're not going to be rehabilitated if you're undergoing mandatory psychiatric treatment). The length of time required varies from 3 years for minor felonies punishable by a fine or suspended sentence, to 15 years.

I find that to be pretty reasonable, especially for minor offenses where nobody was hurt. A mistake in youth shouldn't brand someone for life.

 

[JERRYS.]

this is the only misdemeanor that strips you of a constitutionally protected right, and actual physical violence need not be part of the charge/conviction.

 

[62coltnavy]

Most notably, he did not get a straight answer, only avoidance. And that may be the end of it, as the issue was not raised below, such that the doctrine of "constitutional avoidance" will be brought to bear as necessary.

 

[Ben Dover]

I've read several opinions written by Mr. Justice Thomas, and the man is an intellectual giant.

The less he speaks, the more he listens. Like the wise old owl.

 

[kidzbank]

I read the transcripts of that hearing, and it was really hard to figure out what the case was all about. (except for the part that Thomas spoke up on) everything else seemed to boild down to figuring out what "battery" meant. Once Thomas spoke up, they wound up the discussion quickly before they ended up getting the law pulled.

 

[barnbwt]

I would consider that a life-long suspension of any right is not reasonable to apply as a blanket rule.

If the suspension is part of the sentence at the time of sentence, it could potentially be valid (i.e. there's no 'law' that says murder has to be a felony, rather than a misdemeanor with the same penalties/consequences; they're just names for an act). But the retroactive effects of Laughtenberg and potentially even the initial generation of felons disenfranchised from gun ownership were consequences levied upon them without consideration at the time of their counsel, judge, jury, or themselves. The old stories about 'no-contest' or even guilty pleas to avoid trial for a 'mere misdemeanor' decades ago coming home to roost come to mind. Not only may the person not have chosen to take a plea deal to avoid trial, the jury may have been more reticent to levy a harsher punishment, and a judge's opinion on the matter could have weight; but none of this was considered as part of the process by which these people were debarred their right to keep and bear arms, ergo 'due process' was not satisfied (the fact these are even legal questions yet to be answered by the courts is further evidence that the legislative process was not sufficient 'due process by proxy' for these people, if such a thing is even legitimate)

TCB

 

[barnbwt]

Anyone remember that article from like a year or so back (NY Times, I think) which put forth the theory that Thomas had had a stroke or something, and was physically unable to speak freely in court? Maybe it was Austim, I forget. Talk about derpedy-derp. I think even at the time he was doing lectures and of course writing opinions & giving occasional interviews.

TCB