Clarence Thomas Breaks His 10 Year Vow of Silence to Defend Wifebeaters' Right to buy Guns.

[TrollBuster9090]

WTF?

Clarence Thomas has spent the last ten years sitting on the Supreme Court with a piece of duct tape over his mouth, saying nothing, and hoping the IRS won't know he's there if he doesn't make any noise.

So...apparently he broke his 10 year long vow of silence today to defend the 'rights' of people convicted of domestic violence to buy guns. HE may be talking now, but I'M F-ING SPEECHLESS!

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supreme-court-justice-clarence-thomas-breaks-courtroom-silence-n528151?cid=sm_fb

This case, by the way, is an NRA pet project. They've been pushing State politicians hard to stand up against a federal law that bans people who've been convicted of domestic violence from buying guns. As far as I know, very few Federal politicians have dared to back this effort, because it's just too high profile. However, they seem to have a two pronged approach: 1. Get State Governments to push the effort, and 2. Get their four shills on the Supreme Court to back it.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20151102/justices-to-review-reach-of-gun-ban-for-domestic-violence

Justice Clarence Thomas (not exactly as shown)

[former9thward]

1. No one's wife was "beaten".

Not the facts of this case. This case involved a misdemeanor not a felony. Thomas asked the government lawyer a valid question. What other misdemeanor means you lose Constitutional rights? The government lawyer could not answer.

[kcr]

2. Oh? What was the misdemeanor for?

Do you know?

[former9thward]

3. Yes the defendant pushed his wife against the wall during an argument

while he was drunk. If someone was "beaten" it would have been a felony. In what other misdemeanor would there be a loss of Constitutional rights? The government lawyer could not answer the question.

[kcr]

12. So you were wrong. That's what I thought n/t

[former9thward]

17. No I was not.

[ThoughtCriminal]

68. Wow

Just. Wow.

[former9thward]

75. Thoughtful ....

[ThoughtCriminal]

90. And thought you were going to say

Strawman again.

here's a parting thought. 14 years on DU, I have put four others on ignore. They're all gone now.

[former9thward]

92. Terrifying ...

[liberalhistorian]

15. Oh, I see. So he

"only" physically pushed his wife against the wall during an argument. Nope, no big deal there. Just keeping his woman in her rightful place. Nothing to see here, folks, nope, move along, move along. Go fix your manly men some sammiches or something.

This shouldn't be needed, but here it is anyway, 'cause you never know anymore:

[former9thward]

19. Take your strawman set-ups somewhere else.

He was convicted of a misdemeanor which was correct.

[brentspeak]

21. I think it's always safe to allow drunk idiots who push and shove their wives against walls

to own guns, don't you?

[former9thward]

22. What other Constitutional rights do you want taken away for misdemeanor convictions?

Right to vote? More voter suppression?

[brentspeak]

26. Your defense of violent drunk people owning guns

is touching.

As is your stout defense of Clarence Thomas on Democratic Underground.

[former9thward]

34. Fail.

You can't answer the question.

[Major Nikon]

45. You'd think carrying that much water for Thomas would inevitably lead to back problems

[former9thward]

58. I wuld say hauling around so much straw

to build strawmen would cause you a lot more back problems.

[Major Nikon]

72. You can certainly say whatever you want

Proving your assertions seems to be a bit more problematic.

What exactly do you think is strawman?

[AtheistCrusader]

71. Interesting you acknowledge that it is a stout defense.

stout - Adjective; strong, substantial, and robust

[Major Nikon]

30. ...

[former9thward]

35. So what is your answer to the question?

[Major Nikon]

36. What is it that’s green, hangs on the wall, and whistles?

[former9thward]

38. Your brain, but I don't think it can whistle..

[Major Nikon]

39. Impressive

[jberryhill]

55. There are several answers to the question

A misdemeanor is an offense punishable by up to a year in prison.

So, there is a substantial collection of deprivations of Constitutional rights on the table with a misdemeanor charge.

[former9thward]

59. We are talking post sentence.

Of course you know that. Which is why the federal government attorney stammered trying to give non-answers to the questions.

[jberryhill]

61. Several grades of sexual offenses have permanent consequences

A misdemeanor indecent exposure from peeing outside will get you a lifetime of listing on offender databases and restrictions on where you can live.

You have not addressed my question about mental health conditions being included in background checks for guns.

Since when does one lose a Constitutional right as a consequence of mental illness.

For consistency, would you please indicate whether you are okay with denial of gun purchases to people who have committed no crime at all. Then we can talk about violent misdemeanors v. felonies.

[former9thward]

62. You don't have a Constitutional right

to live somewhere or not be on a offender database (any misdemeanor conviction will result in you being on a conviction database for life. Any attorney who tells you different is lying or ignorant).

I have no problem with people who are certified by a court to be mentally ill to have gun rights denied. Also have no problem with them having other rights denied.

[jberryhill]

63. How do you lose a Constitutional right by illness?

There is NO Constitutional distinction among those who are mentally ill and those who are not - none.

So you are okay with one artificial classification having no basis in the Constitutional text, but not another?

If a person is violent - as indicated by a violent misdemeanor - then whether they have gotten a diagnosis is, IMHO, irrelevant.

No, a person who pushes someone into a wall during an argument should not have a gun.

[jberryhill]

64. And, yes, you do have a Constitutional right to "live somewhere"

Residing in a house you have purchased, or living in an apartment you have rented, which is within 1000 feet of a school is a Constitutional liberty interest.

There are places where, if you live within 1000 feet of a school, and you pee outside and get caught, you will have to leave your home.

[former9thward]

67. You are inventing rights that are not there.

Maybe you can reference where in the Constitution it gives you this right. My copy doesn't have it. If there is a Constitutional right to live somewhere why do we have homeless? Shouldn't they be suing the government for denying them that right?

[jberryhill]

80. You seem not to understand

Notice I referred to a purchased home or an apartment.

Here let me help you understand what I wrote:

"Residing in a house you have purchased, or living in an apartment you have rented"

You seem to believe that a person can be deprived of property interests (a lease is a property interest) without compensation, and that is not a constitutional violation.

If you rent an apartment within the proscribed distance to a school, and you are convicted of misdemeanor indecent exposure for being caught peeing in a forest somewhere, you are then deprived of your home if you live in one of many jurisdictions in which persons convicted of "sex crimes" cannot live in a given proximity to a school.

It is bleedingly obvious that you have a "right to a home". You do, however, have a right to your home and other property - of which you may be deprived upon conviction of a misdemeanor.

[A Simple Game]

47. The real question for everyone is why do you and Clarence

draw the line in the sand between a felony and a violent misdemeanor?

My personal question is why would anyone defend the right of a violent wife abuser to own a gun. I can think of only one answer but best to keep it to myself.

[former9thward]

60. The law draws the line between

misdemeanors and felonies. Has for centuries.

[A Simple Game]

74. For centuries, pertaining to gun ownership? I learn something new every day.

Or do I???

[former9thward]

76. Yeah guns and gun crimes have been around for centuries.

If you are really interesting in learning the concept there are two options: neither is cheap. Go to law school or schedule a hour or two with an attorney to explain it.

[lark]

52. He pushed her so hard she bled.

This wasn't some playful little shove it was done in anger while drunk and caused harm. Should it have been a misdemeanor when it caused her to bleed or was the judge just another good old boy(girl) who overlooks harm to women?

[Dont call me Shirley]

69. So basically he assaulted her, should have been a felony, probably pled down to a misdemeanor.

[jberryhill]

81. It's still a violent crime

The misdemeanor/felony distinction here is a red herring. The poster in question does not believe conviction of any crime is necessary to deprive a person of a right to own a gun. So why he is clinging to that artificial distinction is a mystery.

[lark]

105. Exactly

[jberryhill]

54. Is mental illness a "misdemeanor"? How many rights do you want to take away for that?

You seem to believe that there is some distinction in the term "violent crime" between a felony and a misdemeanor.

As things stand, right now, one can lose the right to buy a gun merely on the say-so of a mental health professional.

Being mentally ill is not a crime at all.

What other constitutional rights do YOU want to take away for mental illness?

Or am I assuming too much. Do you likewise support the right of those who have been diagnosed as violently mentally ill to own guns?

But if you do not, then what is the distinction you are trying to draw here between violent crimes, be they misdemeanors or felonies?

In other words, assuming you support the prohibition of gun ownership to those who have committed no crime at all, on account of a mental health referral, then I don't see why this formal distinction among violent crimes makes such a difference to you.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

94. Constitutional or not, you're setting a false equivalence.

Barring a violent person from owning guns is not the same as denying anyone the right to vote, nor is it the same as allowing voter suppression.

[former9thward]

95. We are told all the time that not allowing felons to vote is vote suppression.

Miss those threads? But you want to restrict Constitutional rights from those with misdemeanor convictions.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

96. The Second Amendment is not nearly so clear.

It's been and still is subject to a lot of interpretation and questions regarding the founders' intent.

[brett_jv]

100. Yes, well, if you want to get technical ...

There's actually also no 'right to vote' explicitly prescribed by the Constitution either ...

That's why some have, in the VERY recent past, recommended passing an Constitutional Amendment explicitly guaranteeing the right of all Citizens of the USA to vote ...

Don't get me wrong, I also think the 2nd was never meant to guarantee the individual right of everybody to own as many guns of whatever type and as much ammo as they desire either.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

108. Good point, thanks!

I knew I should have checked before typing!

[treestar]

103. None. Only the one about having a dangerous

instrument that can kill people. No one said a thing about any others. Straw man and stupid question.

[drray23]

51. pushing somebody, especially a woman if you are a man against the wall

is domestic violence. Maybe not in your neck of the woods, it sure is in my world. Whether or not this guy got lucky with a judge and only had to classified as a misdemeanor is besides the point. You do not want people who are prone to fits of anger to the point that they physically push others to also carry a gun. Next time he might kill his wife.

[former9thward]

57. You may of missed the story.

He was convicted of domestic violence. You didn't see that?

[MADem]

107. That's not assault consummated by battery? nt

[joeybee12]

7. If the government lawyer couldn't answer that softball

They need a better lawyer...10 years and this is the deepest question the twit can ask?

[former9thward]

8. He asked about 12 questions.

Trying to get the government attorney to answer one.

[Kingofalldems]

13. Can you defend his lack of questions for so many years?

I'm sure you can.

[former9thward]

14. I can comment on it.

Of course if someone comments on a topic you call that "defending" the person. That is your long standing SOP. Thomas has long said that the Justices' minds are made up about a case before oral arguments in the case. He feels oral arguments are just for show so he stopped asking questions about 10 years ago. I do know many people in the legal community agree that no one changes their mind in SC oral arguments. I am not a SC Justice so I don't know if it is true or not.

[nichomachus]

78. It wasn't that he couldn't answer the question

It was that he wasn't expecting one from Me-Too Thomas. He probably could have answered one from a normal justice.

It's like if, all of a sudden, a statue asked you a question, you'd be like, "WTF just happened? Is that freaking statue talking to me? Am I hearing things?"

[joeybee12]

79. When I first heard that Thomas asked a question, I assumed it was...

"When's lunch?"

[treestar]

104. very irrelevant and unprofessional of Thomas

to ask such a high school debate level question. He should know what the case's issues are. And that there is no argument that they be deprived of any right other than that of owning a gun.

[Major Nikon]

18. Armstrong was convicted twice of beating his wife

Armstrong was charged with one count of possessing firearms and ammunition after having been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence in contravention of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9). As a predicate offense to the charge, the indictment listed a 2008 misdemeanor conviction for Armstrong's assault of his wife in violation of Maine's simple assault statute. Prior to that conviction, Armstrong had been convicted of two simple assaults: in 1992 and 2002. The 2002 and 2008 convictions were for domestic assaults against his wife, Rosanna Armstrong.

The 2008 assault was described by the district court as follows. Armstrong's wife called the police on or about December 29, 2008, after, as she described to them, she and her husband had gotten in an argument about baking cookies, and Armstrong pushed her. She pushed him back, and the situation escalated until Armstrong hit her “hard.” Armstrong was charged and convicted of domestic violence assault under Maine's simple assault statute for “intentionally, knowingly or recklessly caus[ing] bodily injury or offensive physical contact to Rosanna Armstrong.”

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1620636.html#sthash.Dm8mwFS7.dpuf

[former9thward]

20. He [pushed her onto wall.

Those are the facts of the misdemeanor conviction. If you think that is "beating someone up" you are in a different world than I.

[Major Nikon]

23. I guess you missed the part that was in bold print, just for you

[kcr]

24. More like a different time period. See, it's 2016. Not 1816.

Knocking the little woman around is viewed a little differently, now.

[liberalhistorian]

33. I get the feeling he kind of wishes

it WERE 1816, if he has no problem with a man physically slamming his wife into a wall and, on another occasion, hitting her hard among other abuse, if he doesn't consider that to be "beating up."

[liberalhistorian]

32. Jesus Christ.

You don't consider him physically pushing a woman into a wall to not be a big deal, to not be "beating up"? What is your definition of "beating up"? Does he have to put her in a hospital ICU ward before you'll consider that genuinely "beating her up"? Do you have any idea how frightening that is for a woman to be physically pushed into a wall by someone larger and stronger than her? And you do realize that this joker previously physically assaulted women as well? Yet you'd probably still defend that as no big deal. Good God.

[former9thward]

37. You love strawmen.

That is not the facts of this case. That the DA did not charge a felony is clear. Maybe you should move there and run for office because you know the case and what a actually happened.

[liberalhistorian]

40. You are avoiding the question of your minimizing

a woman being physically pushed into a wall by her husband, basically saying it's no big deal and you don't consider it to be "beating up." I think I can guess as to why you're avoiding that question.

[former9thward]

43. Do you think it should have been charged as a felony?

How many other Constitutional rights do you want taken away for misdemeanor convictions?

[liberalhistorian]

70. Once again, you have

sidestepped the question. I'm not talking about the legal mechanics of misdemeanors and felonies, what should or should not be considered which. I'll ask it bluntly this time. Do you or do you not consider a woman getting slammed physically against a wall to be "beating up", or is it just "no big deal."

[Major Nikon]

41. Nonsense

Armstrong hit his wife hard as described in the court documents. That's what an actual fact looks like which you have already been shown. Even a domestic violence apologist who wants to write off a shove as no big deal should be able to figure out that hitting someone hard falls under the category of beating.

The whole point of the law was to take precious away from violent spousal abusers who were pleading their cases down to misdemeanors.

[former9thward]

42. The case was not plead down.

It was never charged as a felony.

[Major Nikon]

44. Your proof seems to be quite lacking

For one thing, you have no idea what he was or wasn't originally charged with. For another, plea bargaining can take place at any point during the criminal justice process which includes both before and after a defendant is charged. It's very telling when someone who anonymously claims to be a "Constitutional rights attorney" would not know this. So even if you could prove your 2nd statement (and I'm pretty sure you can't), you sure as hell can't prove the first. Even if you could (and you can't), the very best you'd have is another red herring which doesn't change the reason for the law. Domestic violence is epidemic in this country, and quite a bit of it results in death. Those deaths are almost always the result of violence that escalated over time, and the presence of guns in this situation simply insures more dead victims. This law exists because it saves lives.

[former9thward]

56. The defendant's gun conviction had nothing to do with their families.

So now you are saying the DA gave the defendant a pass and should have charged a felony. Ok....

[Major Nikon]

73. The law doesn't require that it does

So why you'd mention this is anyone's guess.

So now you are saying the DA gave the defendant a pass and should have charged a felony. Ok....

I'm not saying any such thing. Strawman much?

[Bucky]

4. Well, now we know who was keeping the duct tape resupplied

like there was any doubt

Maybe Thomas is grieving. He's lost a dear friend. Maybe this is his way of crying out for help.

I'm here for you, man. If you need a shoulder, I've got you covered. Here, have a coke.









(picture on edit)

[JI7]

5. since Scalia can't do it

[Skittles]

6. now that puppeteer Antonin's hand is out of Clarence's ass

he actually has to voice his own opinions

[mercuryblues]

9. These men are slime

Habitual offenders along with a host of other crimes.

Voisine shouldn't have had guns. His criminal record included 14 convictions for assault and domestic violence spanning 28 years. When Voisine admitted that he shot the bald eagle with a rifle, he unwittingly confessed to owning a gun as a domestic abuser.

<snip>
As he built a record of crimes against his partners, Voisine ignored four different restraining orders issued to protect the women he was dating, according to court documents. Once, while prohibited from contacting an ex-wife, he entered her home.
<snip>

Armstrong was similarly prone to brutality; a judge once described him as a man with a "history of violence against women." Court records show that on separate occasions, his wife, ex-girlfriends, and mother called the police on him for pushing, grabbing, and hitting them.
<snip>

Villa's interest in raising the bar for what counts as abuse stems in part from a broader desire to keep people out of prisons, which she sees as hotbeds of violence that only exacerbate a defendant's aggressive tendencies. But in the context of her clients' date with the Supreme Court, her case is relatively simple: Voisine and Armstrong were merely being reckless when they struck their partners; reckless crimes must be treated differently than intentional crimes; and only intentional violence against a partner counts as domestic violence, for the purposes of the federal gun ban.

http://www.lennyletter.com/politics/a266/will-the-supreme-court-let-these-domestic-abusers-get-their-guns-back/

William E. Armstrong III was convicted in 2002 and 2008 of assaulting his wife in violation of Maine's misdemeanor assault statutes, Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 17-A §§ 207(1)(A), 207-A(1)(A). In May 2010, twenty-nine months after the last domestic assault conviction, the Maine State Police searched the Armstrong residence for drug paraphernalia and marijuana. They discovered six firearms and ammunition. The police notified the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), which executed a search. That search uncovered only ammunition, but Armstrong later explained that he had arranged for a friend to remove the guns. ATF agents observed the guns at the friend's home.

Armstrong was arrested and federally charged with being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm, in violation of § 922(g)(9). The indictment listed Armstrong's 2008 domestic violence assault conviction as the predicate offense.

Stephen L. Voisine was convicted in 2003 and 2005 of assaulting a woman with whom he was in a domestic relationship, in violation of Maine's assault statute. In 2009, acting on an anonymous tip, state and local law enforcement officials arrested Voisine on the federal misdemeanor charge of killing a bald eagle in violation of 16 U.S.C. § 668(a). When conducting a background check, they discovered his 2003 misdemeanor simple assault. As Voisine had turned a rifle over to the police during the investigation, the criminal information charged him with violating § 922(g)(9) as well as § 668(a).

http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FCO%2020150202050/U.S.%20v.%20VOISINE

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

93. Makes you wonder how these guys got their acts together enough to pursue a Supreme Court case.

Also... why is it so important for them to be able to own guns? Eagle hunting? They live in Maine. There is virtually no crime here. They actually are the criminal element around here. Part of what of makes this a safe state is this law that takes the guns away from domestic abusers like them.

[mercuryblues]

97. both

were caught with guns, after they were barred from owning them. One was for killing a bald eagle, the other during a drug raid. If the SC rules in their favor they get no jail time for the guns they had. The lawyers argument is basically they did not intend to harm the victims when they beat them, therefor their guns should not have been taken away.

Under Maine law, a "person is guilty of assault if[ t]he person intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury or offensive physical contact to another person."

This case has further implications than prohibiting gun ownership for domestic abusers. It can potentially redefine it. It will eliminate the offensive contact-didn't leave a bruise. IE no great bodily harm was done, so was it really domestic violence.

[Rex]

10. Clarence Thomas? Who is that? Name doesn't ring a bell. nt

nt

[Proud Liberal Dem]

11. As if

anybody was expecting something more profound?

[Dont call me Shirley]

89. Or reasonable?

[hifiguy]

16. Proof that Soapy Sam Alito

has taken over Scalia's ventriloquist responsibilities for Uncle Ruckus.

[Rex]

82. Scalia's sockpuppet.

I have no opinion now, it passed away last month.

[hifiguy]

83. Herpity derpity DERP!

[Rex]

84. I would revoke my lifetime of scorn for the man if he did the honorable thing

and stepped down from the bench, right now. Tomorrow at the latest.

[hifiguy]

86. When the history is written, I have zero doubt he will make the

Ten Worst Justices Ever List. He might crack the top five. A disgrace to the bench, ANY bench, and the man in whose seat he sits, Thurgood Marshall, who was everything Ruckus is not.

[Rex]

87. True he could only dream of becoming

Thurgood Marshall. Most of them on the court could hope to be that accomplished imo. Hell Ms. Ginsburg could retire and let Obama-HRCBernie put THREE people on the court! Wouldn't that cause GOP Congress to explode? They would have to deep clean the drapes!

And make SURE all three are minority women! I want to be there when McConnell's head explodes on live TV!

[jpak]

25. and bald eagle murderers...

The Originalists are not amused....

[revbones]

27. Hillary's David Brock helped get Charence Thomas there

and it's interesting to note that admitted liar David Brock is a shill for Hillary now... Great team!

[A Simple Game]

48. Hey, just because an admitted liar like Brock lied for monetary gain about an innocent

victim of sexual assault from Clarence Thomas to get the unqualified Thomas appointed to the Supreme Court doesn't mean that proven and admitted liar Brock would lie for monetary gain for a Democratic candidate who has often been caught in lies to be elected President even if the candidate herself has a history of being a liar herself.

You should be ashamed of yourself for implying that.

[revbones]

49. ...

[Merryland]

29. what a noble cause to break your silence over: guns for wife-beaters.

[Initech]

31. Yeah because we need more guns in the hands of dangerous people. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

[SunSeeker]

46. Being mentally ill is not a felony either, so we should let them have guns?

Whether or not some predicate behavior is labeled a felony has no relevance to whether that person should be denied a gun. Thomas, as usual, is full of shit.

[lark]

50. Thomas is a sexist pig and a liar and a tax cheat.

No wonder he favors stalker men being able to get guns to use on their wives.

[underpants]

53. Are we sure it was him? There could've been another lousy earpiece

[pbmus]

66. How a misogynistic porkine

Last edited Tue Mar 1, 2016, 11:51 PM - Edit history (1)

Like Thomas can ask a stupid question and get this much attention is just mind boggling

[Warren DeMontague]

77. We've already nullified the 4th amendment in pursuit of putting pot smokers in prison

Where was his concern then?

[Rex]

85. Well those non-violent offenders need to be taught a lesson, what the fuck it is I have no idea

nor does anyone in charge over the last few decades. Thomas probably never gave it a single thought.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

88. I guess these are Maine dudes that this case is about.

I read one of these guys got busted for illegal possession of a gun because he was reported for shooting a bald eagle. When he was asked why he shot at the eagle, he said it was because he thought it was a hawk. The judge informed him it was also illegal to shoot a hawk. He went to prison for year for possessing a gun and also for shooting the eagle.

http://bangordailynews.com/2012/02/13/news/bangor/wytopitlock-man-sentenced-for-shooting-bald-eagle/

[Kaleva]

91. Guys like that shouldn't have guns period.

[3catwoman3]

98. Should've continued to keep his...

...mouth shut.

[NNadir]

99. It would not surprise me if "Justice" Thomas tries to revive the Dred Scott decision as stare...

...decisis.

I would expect too that he objects to the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments - if in fact he's read them - as well as, obviously, the 19th and would like to see them all repealed.

Of course, for him to oppose those amendments, he would need to be familiar with their contents, and in fact, there is very little evidence that he as ever read the constitution.

What an idiot!

[Lodestar]

101. I've always had the impression that Thomas could make a killing being a

spokesman for the discomfort associated with constipation.

[jfern]

102. He may have to ask questions now that Scalia won't be asking them for him

[MADem]

106. HBO is doing CONFIRMATION --the story of how Joe Biden and Scooter Libby's wife pushed him

through the nomination process while playing the Nuts/Sluts card on Anita Hill.

Kerry Washington will play Hill. Greg Kinnear is Biden.

Everyone who has seen it is raving about how good it is. I can't wait.