Thomas is an outlier once again.

[berg80]

Only Clarence Thomas Would Let Domestic Abusers Keep Their Guns In New Ruling​

The Supreme Court ruled Friday that individuals who pose a “credible threat to the physical safety of another” may be stripped of their guns, showing that even its extremely expansive reading of the Second Amendment stops short of letting a proven domestic abuser carry arms.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, joined by every justice except — shockingly — Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Sonia Sotomayor also wrote a concurrence, joined by Justice Elena Kagan. Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson all wrote separate concurring decisions.

Only Clarence Thomas Would Let Domestic Abusers Keep Their Guns In New Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled Friday that individuals who pose a “credible threat to the physical safety of another” may be stripped of their guns, showing that even its extremely expansive reading of the Second Amendment stops at letting a proven domestic abuser carry arms.

talkingpointsmemo.com

To say he has a unique legal mind could be interpreted as a compliment. That would be the wrong way to look at it. There are traditional conservatives, then there are conservative ideologues (like Alito), and then there's Clarence.

 

[excalibur]

So?

 

[1srelluc]

Not really....

Say you got in a fight in a bar, went a bit overboard, and really cleaned someone's clock and was charged with say 2nd degree assault.....not even a felony.

You go to court and there is nothing preventing an activist judge or even a magistrate from arbitrarily denying your gun rights and pulling your carry permit.....Even ordering the removal guns from your home.

The kicker here is that there is no felony charge and no conviction yet but no time limit as far as denying you your 2nd amendment rights, could be anything from a month till forever.

Meanwhile you are disarmed and as luck would have it your home gets invaded by FJB's new friends and there you are with no gun to defend hearth and home.

That also extends to to family members residing in your home.

 

[Rogue AI]

Thomas was right. The only bright spot here is that it is a narrow ruling and doesn't open the door to all the lunacy the gun grabbers want.

 

[Polishprince]

Justice Thomas has one of the highest correct voting percentages in Supreme Court history. That's just a simple, undisputed fact.

Sort of racist to attack Thomas, who is the Jackie Robinson of the Supreme Court, breaking down the color barrier.

 

[Oddball]

Only Clarence Thomas Would Let Domestic Abusers Keep Their Guns In New Ruling​

The Supreme Court ruled Friday that individuals who pose a “credible threat to the physical safety of another” may be stripped of their guns, showing that even its extremely expansive reading of the Second Amendment stops short of letting a proven domestic abuser carry arms.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, joined by every justice except — shockingly — Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Sonia Sotomayor also wrote a concurrence, joined by Justice Elena Kagan. Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson all wrote separate concurring decisions.

Only Clarence Thomas Would Let Domestic Abusers Keep Their Guns In New Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled Friday that individuals who pose a “credible threat to the physical safety of another” may be stripped of their guns, showing that even its extremely expansive reading of the Second Amendment stops at letting a proven domestic abuser carry arms.

talkingpointsmemo.com

To say he has a unique legal mind could be interpreted as a compliment. That would be the wrong way to look at it. There are traditional conservatives, then there are conservative ideologues (like Alito), and then there's Clarence.

.....A RACIST WOULD SAYYYYYY!

 

[marvin martian]

Only Clarence Thomas Would Let Domestic Abusers Keep Their Guns In New Ruling​

The Supreme Court ruled Friday that individuals who pose a “credible threat to the physical safety of another” may be stripped of their guns, showing that even its extremely expansive reading of the Second Amendment stops short of letting a proven domestic abuser carry arms.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, joined by every justice except — shockingly — Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Sonia Sotomayor also wrote a concurrence, joined by Justice Elena Kagan. Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson all wrote separate concurring decisions.

Only Clarence Thomas Would Let Domestic Abusers Keep Their Guns In New Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled Friday that individuals who pose a “credible threat to the physical safety of another” may be stripped of their guns, showing that even its extremely expansive reading of the Second Amendment stops at letting a proven domestic abuser carry arms.

talkingpointsmemo.com

To say he has a unique legal mind could be interpreted as a compliment. That would be the wrong way to look at it. There are traditional conservatives, then there are conservative ideologues (like Alito), and then there's Clarence.

It's no different than the way you cheered when you thought Hunter Biden was going to get away with illegally buying and possessing a handgun.

 

[okfine]

Not really....

Say you got in a fight in a bar, went a bit overboard, and really cleaned someone's clock and was charged with say 2nd degree assault.....not even a felony.

You go to court and there is nothing preventing an activist judge or even a magistrate from arbitrarily denying your gun rights and pulling your carry permit.....Even ordering the removal guns from your home.

The kicker here is that there is no felony charge and no conviction yet but no time limit as far as denying you your 2nd amendment rights, could be anything from a month till forever.

Meanwhile you are disarmed and as luck would have it your home gets invaded by FJB's new friends and there you are with no gun to defend hearth and home.

That also extends to to family members residing in your home.

Fn paranoid drivel.

 

[Billiejeens]

Only Clarence Thomas Would Let Domestic Abusers Keep Their Guns In New Ruling​

The Supreme Court ruled Friday that individuals who pose a “credible threat to the physical safety of another” may be stripped of their guns, showing that even its extremely expansive reading of the Second Amendment stops short of letting a proven domestic abuser carry arms.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, joined by every justice except — shockingly — Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Sonia Sotomayor also wrote a concurrence, joined by Justice Elena Kagan. Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson all wrote separate concurring decisions.

Only Clarence Thomas Would Let Domestic Abusers Keep Their Guns In New Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled Friday that individuals who pose a “credible threat to the physical safety of another” may be stripped of their guns, showing that even its extremely expansive reading of the Second Amendment stops at letting a proven domestic abuser carry arms.

talkingpointsmemo.com

To say he has a unique legal mind could be interpreted as a compliment. That would be the wrong way to look at it. There are traditional conservatives, then there are conservative ideologues (like Alito), and then there's Clarence.

Racist

 

[excalibur]

Thomas was right. The only bright spot here is that it is a narrow ruling and doesn't open the door to all the lunacy the gun grabbers want.

Just read most of his dissent and yes, he got it correct.

 

[excalibur]

This is what 8 Justices think is okay.

From Thomas dissent at 96 in the link:

Section 922(g)(8) thus revokes a person’s
Second Amendment right based on the suspicion that he
may commit a crime in the future. In addition, the only
process required before that revocation is a hearing on the
underlying court order. §922(g)(8)(A). During that civil
hearing—which is not even about §922(g)(8)—a person has
fewer constitutional protections compared to a criminal
prosecution for affray. Gone are the Sixth Amendment’s
panoply of rights, including the rights to confront witnesses
and have assistance of counsel, as well as the Fifth Amend-
ment’s protection against double jeopardy.​

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf

 

[Augustine_]

Only Clarence Thomas Would Let Domestic Abusers Keep Their Guns In New Ruling​

The Supreme Court ruled Friday that individuals who pose a “credible threat to the physical safety of another” may be stripped of their guns, showing that even its extremely expansive reading of the Second Amendment stops short of letting a proven domestic abuser carry arms.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, joined by every justice except — shockingly — Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Sonia Sotomayor also wrote a concurrence, joined by Justice Elena Kagan. Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson all wrote separate concurring decisions.

Only Clarence Thomas Would Let Domestic Abusers Keep Their Guns In New Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled Friday that individuals who pose a “credible threat to the physical safety of another” may be stripped of their guns, showing that even its extremely expansive reading of the Second Amendment stops at letting a proven domestic abuser carry arms.

talkingpointsmemo.com

To say he has a unique legal mind could be interpreted as a compliment. That would be the wrong way to look at it. There are traditional conservatives, then there are conservative ideologues (like Alito), and then there's Clarence.

If you read his history Thomas had an incredibly fucked up childhood which probably explains his love for inflicting cruelty and misery on others

 

[Billiejeens]

If you read his history Thomas had an incredibly fucked up childhood which probably explains his love for inflicting cruelty and misery on others

No

 

[Jarlaxle]

This is what 8 Justices think is okay.

From Thomas dissent at 96 in the link:

Section 922(g)(8) thus revokes a person’s
Second Amendment right based on the suspicion that he
may commit a crime in the future. In addition, the only
process required before that revocation is a hearing on the
underlying court order. §922(g)(8)(A). During that civil
hearing—which is not even about §922(g)(8)—a person has
fewer constitutional protections compared to a criminal
prosecution for affray. Gone are the Sixth Amendment’s
panoply of rights, including the rights to confront witnesses
and have assistance of counsel, as well as the Fifth Amend-
ment’s protection against double jeopardy.​

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf

Someone came up with an end run around due process, and got the courts to sign off on it.

 

[berg80]

Thomas was right. The only bright spot here is that it is a narrow ruling and doesn't open the door to all the lunacy the gun grabbers want.

Most Americans also know that holding us hostage to the dictates of the 18th century is an antidemocratic checkmate. They understand intuitively that while public opinion favors reproductive freedom and sensible gun regulations and the right to vote, the MAGA faction of the Supreme Court has found a doctrinal party trick to ensure that nobody can have any of those things because they weren’t protected at the founding or at the time of the Reconstruction Amendments, or whichever point of history the high court deems relevant (it varies). In the single most horrific case in the horrific term at the Supreme Court, gun rights zealots argued that a man who had lost the right to possess a firearm as the result of having beat up his girlfriend should be allowed to possess that firearm—because historically, domestic abusers were not disarmed. In October 2022, a federal judge in West Virginia ruled that the federal ban on possessing a gun with its serial number removed was unconstitutional because, as the judge wrote ruefully, “A firearm without a serial number in 1791 was certainly not considered dangerous or unusual compared to other firearms because serial numbers were not required or even commonly used at that time.” This is the world we are living in. It is the world we are acceding to inhabit.

America Is Captive to One Ridiculous Legal Theory That Dictates Our Lives. Here’s What We Can Do.

The laws on guns, abortion, and so much more don't have to be like this.

slate.com

You and your argument are absurd.

 

[Rogue AI]

Most Americans also know that holding us hostage to the dictates of the 18th century is an antidemocratic checkmate. They understand intuitively that while public opinion favors reproductive freedom and sensible gun regulations and the right to vote, the MAGA faction of the Supreme Court has found a doctrinal party trick to ensure that nobody can have any of those things because they weren’t protected at the founding or at the time of the Reconstruction Amendments, or whichever point of history the high court deems relevant (it varies). In the single most horrific case in the horrific term at the Supreme Court, gun rights zealots argued that a man who had lost the right to possess a firearm as the result of having beat up his girlfriend should be allowed to possess that firearm—because historically, domestic abusers were not disarmed. In October 2022, a federal judge in West Virginia ruled that the federal ban on possessing a gun with its serial number removed was unconstitutional because, as the judge wrote ruefully, “A firearm without a serial number in 1791 was certainly not considered dangerous or unusual compared to other firearms because serial numbers were not required or even commonly used at that time.” This is the world we are living in. It is the world we are acceding to inhabit.

America Is Captive to One Ridiculous Legal Theory That Dictates Our Lives. Here’s What We Can Do.

The laws on guns, abortion, and so much more don't have to be like this.

slate.com

You and your argument are absurd.

Your inability to think for yourself is hardly a compelling argument. Repeating lame talking points doesn't strengthen them.

 

[TNHarley]

Thomas was correct on this. Thanks for posting OP.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Someone came up with an end run around due process, and got the courts to sign off on it.

In addition, the only
process required before that revocation is a hearing on the
underlying court order.

THAT is due process.

 

[Rogue AI]

In addition, the only
process required before that revocation is a hearing on the
underlying court order.

THAT is due process.

Except nowhere in the Constitution is the government given the power to revoke rights. The suspension of rights during incarceration is not a revocation of rights, as the full suite of Constitutional protections are granted before and during a trial.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Except nowhere in the Constitution is the government given the power to revoke rights.

WTF?
The 14th amendment does.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The suspension of rights during incarceration is not a revocation of rights,

It sure is.

as the full suite of Constitutional protections are granted before and during a trial.

DUE PROCESS.