ShareThis Page

Justice Thomas ends long silence with questions on gun rights

| Monday, Feb. 29, 2016, 8:27 p.m.
Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas has made it a rule to remain silent during oral arguments, believing that the hour-long sessions are an opportunity for opposing lawyers to make their case.
AFP/Getty Images
Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas has made it a rule to remain silent during oral arguments, believing that the hour-long sessions are an opportunity for opposing lawyers to make their case.

WASHINGTON — Justice Clarence Thomas broke a 10-year silence Monday at the Supreme Court, just two weeks after the death of his conservative colleague Antonin Scalia left a noticeable void during oral arguments.

Thomas piped up for the first time since Feb. 22, 2006 — other than a brief quip uttered three years ago — with an extensive series of questions about Second Amendment gun rights.

The case involved two Maine men barred from owning firearms under a federal law because of prior state domestic violence convictions. The men argued that those convictions did not merit the lifetime ban, and Thomas apparently agreed.

“This is a misdemeanor violation. It suspends a constitutional right,” Thomas told Ilana Eisenstein, the assistant solicitor general arguing the federal government's case. “Can you give me another area where a misdemeanor violation suspends a constitutional right?”

That prompted a give-and-take in which Thomas spoke 11 times and asked nine questions. He noted that gun possession is a constitutional right “at least as of now,” a reference to a regular flow of state and municipal laws regulating that Second Amendment right. The Supreme Court's landmark ruling in 2008 upholding the use of guns at home for self-defense was written by Scalia.

The federal law was intended to deny guns to people convicted of violent acts against family members, based in part on research showing they are more likely to use guns domestically in the future.

When Eisenstein likened the punishment to suspending First Amendment rights for compelling reasons, Thomas asked if a publisher who was reckless in printing indecent depictions of children could be prohibited from ever publishing again. No, he was told.

Thomas' dedication to silence sets him apart from colleagues. Led in the past by Scalia, the other justices pounce on the lawyers and seldom let up.

Early in 2013, Thomas spoke for the first time in seven years, but he didn't ask a question. It was just a quick quip during an argument over a defendant's right to a speedy trial.

That discussion focused on the adequacy of the lawyers provided by the state of Louisiana to a defendant later convicted of second-degree murder. Thomas whispered something to Scalia, seated on his left, who then pointed out that one member of the legal team graduated from Yale, another from Harvard.

“Well there, see, he did not provide good counsel,” Thomas said, as if to denigrate a Harvard Law School degree compared to his own degree from Yale.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me