2aHawaii
General Topics => General Discussion => Topic started by: Jl808 on March 01, 2016, 12:53:22 AM
-
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/02/justice_clarence_thomas_asks_q.html
Thomas' question came Monday, Feb. 29, 2016, in a case in which the court is considering placing new limits on the reach of a federal law that bans people convicted of domestic violence from owning guns.
"Ms. Eisenstein, one question," Thomas said. "This is a misdemeanor violation. It suspends a constitutional right. Can you give me another area where a misdemeanor violation suspends a constitutional right?"
Like Scalia, Thomas has long championed Second Amendment gun rights. In December, he and Scalia objected when the high court refused to hear a challenge to a Chicago suburb's assault weapons ban that was upheld by lower courts. Thomas said the justices should not stand by while lower courts relegate "the Second Amendment to a second-class right."
-
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/02/justice_clarence_thomas_asks_q.html (http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/02/justice_clarence_thomas_asks_q.html)
Thomas' question came Monday, Feb. 29, 2016, in a case in which the court is considering placing new limits on the reach of a federal law that bans people convicted of domestic violence from owning guns.
"Ms. Eisenstein, one question," Thomas said. "This is a misdemeanor violation. It suspends a constitutional right. Can you give me another area where a misdemeanor violation suspends a constitutional right?"
Like Scalia, Thomas has long championed Second Amendment gun rights. In December, he and Scalia objected when the high court refused to hear a challenge to a Chicago suburb's assault weapons ban that was upheld by lower courts. Thomas said the justices should not stand by while lower courts relegate "the Second Amendment to a second-class right."
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/8ogUdHE16Qjg1RMqztZYk6ZTCIKXGraEbifG56asZXvyeMrxToyCIySiJjSqEbMR8iQ=s630-fcrop64=1,000017e7ff58d871)
-
Also from Justice Thomas's first comments at oral arguments in 10 years:
"...possession of a gun, which, at least as of now, is still a constitutional right."
Was this just a sardonic/snark comment, or was he telegraphing his concern about the known votes on the SCOTUS to overturn Heller/McDonald, or at least allow further infringing laws to stand? Scary.