We already had juicy info on Thomas. He got approved anyway. rimshot
Was that an inappropriate political jab in MPSIMS? Because sometimes the jokes just write themselves.
It’s all-right. But given that he spent 10 years thinking of it, I would kinda hope for more.
(also, isn’t the answer to the question kinda obvious? If you commit a crime and go to prison, almost all of your consitutional rights are lost, at least for the duration of your sentence.)
Still, the lawyer apparently was so startled she didn’t answer.
Really? I’ve heard him on radio and thought he had a nice voice; nice accent, lovely elocution, rather melodious.
It’s only jarring when you see him, and you’re not expecting him to talk. And then only the first few times.
I think the “homework” is the closest reason. He had a question that he thinks Scalia would normally ask.
Heck, it wouldn’t surprise me if he would sometimes tell Scalia to ask certain questions. If he’s always been quiet, maybe he doesn’t really like speaking in public. He could be that god of this board–an introvert.
But this crime, a misdemeanor, operates to deny you the legal ability to own a firearm even after any confinement ends. Thomas’ first question explored that distinction: he asked if any other misdemeanor conviction resulted in such a denial.
Your summary elides the distinction between a felony and a misdemeanor. It’s well-settled that prior felonies result in loss of firearm rights, and that prior misdemeanors do not. That this particular misdemeanor does was the basis of his line of questioning.
Oh it’s nice. But you get SO used to him never saying a word. And also, because of that you haven’t associated any GIVEN voice to him.
:smack:
Doesn’t sound good for all of us…its never good when someone speaks that hasn’t done so before
Better that we stay ignorant…us knowing more just aggravates 
I have to say, I approve of Thomas’s restraint on Judicial loquaciousness, as a laywer the second worst thing is be faced with a talkative judge; I am the one arguing, you’ll get the answer if you listen for 15 more seconds.
The absolute worst thing? When you appear before a judge doing an impression of a statue.
It’s not like he has kept silent. He doesn’t ask questions in court. He has written many opinions on the cases he has heard. It sounds like many don’t understand that he gives his opinions often on many cases.
Maybe he is just banking that fat paycheck till he can retire and pursue his dream career…first famous African American Mime.
I should preface that even though I politically disagree with Thomas on a wide variety of issues, my understanding is that he gets something of an undeserved bad rap for not asking questions in oral arguments.
He believes oral arguments are of low value - the Justices have already read the various briefs submitted and presumably discussed things with their clerks.
Much of what happens in oral arguments is theater - some Justices have already made up their minds and others may be asking questions more as a signal to other Justices or in the hope that the of the advocates will say something that encourages a Justice to look at the conflict in a different way.
I don’t recall if this podcast was the source of the above information, but it is interesting stuff for anyone interested in the Court:
http://www.onthemedia.org/story/on-the-media-2016-02-19/
Good point. He probably is right. Much of this oral arguement stuff is probably for show more than anything else.
I kinda like the guy. Seems pretty nice as a person. Heck, for all I know he is my arch enemy when it comes to rulings and political alignment.
But his silence is funny.
That’s the impression you got from the Anita Hill hearings? Pretty nice as a person?
Oh, well, you know, that was a chick thing.
Well, I’d let him buy me a drink.
Notice that Thomas did not interrupt the lawyer’s presentation like many of the justices do. He waited until after the lawyer was done and asked him about something that had not been covered in oral argument.
Bless his heart.