Justice Thomas Breaks Silence: Tough Questions About Gun Rights

[Citizen]

...The comments from Thomas were directed at a government attorney, Ilana H. Eisenstein in a case called Voisine v. United States. The case concerns whether a prior domestic assault conviction based on reckless conduct qualifies as a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence that would block the plaintiffs from possessing a firearm.
"Everyone leaned in disbelieving," said Slate's Dahlia Lithwick who was in the Court room. "The colloquy went back and forth several times with Thomas pressing the Assistant Solicitor General," Lithwick said.
"This is a misdemeanor violation," Thomas said at one point to Eisenstein. "It suspends a constitutional right—Can you give me another area where a misdemeanor violation suspends a constitutional right?" he asked...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/29/politics/supreme-court-clarence-thomas-10-year-streak-question/

NOTE: I do not consume CNN. The local news station website I check dropped the story; couldn't even find it with their search feature. So, I had to google for it. The link above is the first return I got.

 

[solus]

it will be truly interesting to see how he votes in the DV case on a misdemeanor eliminating a constitutional right...

(unintended out come could cause states to make DV a felony...sigh)

ipse

 

[nonameisgood]

Thomas may be poised to become the court's new conservative voice. He's probably been quietly learning Scalia's ways and now has to take the baton. However, his comment about the Second Amendment was a little troubling:"...possession of a gun, which, at least as of now, is still a constitutional right..."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WalkingWolf]

Thomas has always been a strong 2A supporter as it was written. He has expressed these sentiments before.

NRA and other so called 2A dropped the ball many times while Scalia was still with us. If a clear right to carry without permission had been established it would have been hard to overturn. These groups squandered the court for their own selfish purposes.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

He also was the lone dissent in Raich.

 

[since9]

Thomas has always been a strong 2A supporter as it was written. He has expressed these sentiments before.

NRA and other so called 2A dropped the ball many times while Scalia was still with us. If a clear right to carry without permission had been established it would have been hard to overturn. These groups squandered the court for their own selfish purposes.

Well said. When any body of judges sworn to uphold the Constitution rules instead solely and repeatedly down party lines, the system has failed. Integrity is missing.

While a pro-2A like Thomas is indeed welcome, the system remains broken. The question is, "How can we fix the system?" There must be a way to restore integrity, so that the justices are voting along Constitutional lines, and not those of a political party.

 

[Citizen]

Tom Goldstein: "Ideologues on both the left and right, as well as the public generally, frequently repeat their own received wisdoms that the Supreme Court is an easily categorized institution and that the Justices are committedly "liberal"� or "conservative,"� with Justice Kennedy as the lone swing vote. Liberals and conservatives also consistently accuse their opposites of being "activists,"� a point vividly on display in the Senators' opening statements in the Kagan confirmation hearings. The just-completed Term proves, I think, that those generalizations are often misleading or outright wrong. [much more]"

http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/06/everything-you-read-about-the-supreme-court-is-wrong/

Also The Oxford Companion to SCOTUS article 'Judicial Activism'

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0195176618

Briefly reviewing common writings of, on, and about SCOTUS, I found no prohibition of judicial activism or commitment to avoid it.

Just commenting generally, Nightmare. Not contradicting.

----------------------------

Liberal vs conservative? Judicial activism vs faithfulness to the constitution?

Phhhhhht!

History proves one thing for sure about SCOTUS. While they do sometimes vote to protect rights, it has been a net loss across time. Far more small and large decisions that confirmed some expansion of government, or passed up an opportunity to hold the line.

Kenneth Royce, in his book Hologram of Liberty asks (paraphrase) how many times you have to lose at a game before you start to wonder if the rules are rigged against you?

 

[utbagpiper]

History proves one thing for sure about SCOTUS. While they do sometimes vote to protect rights, it has been a net loss across time. Far more small and large decisions that confirmed some expansion of government, or passed up an opportunity to hold the line.

Really? Seems like a rather narrow minded view.

I wonder if blacks, American Indians, women, inter-racial couples, homosexuals, pornographers, abortionists, Muslims, Jews, Catholics, Irish, and other previously unpopular minorities would agree with such a myopic view of the progress of this nation.

In fact, can one point to any society in the secular history of the world where unpopular minorities (and the powerful majority) enjoyed greater protection of their rights than are enjoyed in this nation today?

A direct answer would be fine.

Charles

 

[davidmcbeth]

Well said. When any body of judges sworn to uphold the Constitution rules instead solely and repeatedly down party lines, the system has failed. Integrity is missing.

While a pro-2A like Thomas is indeed welcome, the system remains broken. The question is, "How can we fix the system?" There must be a way to restore integrity, so that the justices are voting along Constitutional lines, and not those of a political party.

The system is working as it should ... maybe you don't understand the system? :lol:

 

[OC for ME]

Just commenting generally, Nightmare. Not contradicting.

----------------------------

Liberal vs conservative? Judicial activism vs faithfulness to the constitution?

Phhhhhht!

History proves one thing for sure about SCOTUS. While they do sometimes vote to protect rights, it has been a net loss across time. Far more small and large decisions that confirmed some expansion of government, or passed up an opportunity to hold the line.

Kenneth Royce, in his book Hologram of Liberty asks (paraphrase) how many times you have to lose at a game before you start to wonder if the rules are rigged against you?

Some folks routinely ignore the facts before their very eyes. Terry v. Ohio is the coffin that our 4A was placed into. Kelo is the coffin that our private property right was placed into. Obamacare grants to the feds the ability to tax us for our mere existence.

Three decisions that pretty much excised the life, liberty, property from constitutional discussions.

 

[since9]

In fact, can one point to any society in the secular history of the world where unpopular minorities (and the powerful majority) enjoyed greater protection of their rights than are enjoyed in this nation today?

A direct answer would be fine.[/quote]

Several European countries come to mind, Germany and the UK, in particular. By comparison, the US is playing catch-up, although I'm not sure catching up to nations going over cliffs is a smart thing to do.

How was that for directness?

 

[Freedom1Man]

Some folks routinely ignore the facts before their very eyes. Terry v. Ohio is the coffin that our 4A was placed into. Kelo is the coffin that our private property right was placed into. Obamacare grants to the feds the ability to tax us for our mere existence.

Three decisions that pretty much excised the life, liberty, property from constitutional discussions.

Please cite the LAW that confirms your statement as fact.

I looked into that very law and it does not apply the way most people, whom of which have not actually read the law, believe that it does.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[utbagpiper]

Several European countries come to mind, Germany and the UK, in particular. By comparison, the US is playing catch-up, although I'm not sure catching up to nations going over cliffs is a smart thing to do.

And how are the rights to privacy, RKBA, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, rights against self-incrimination, and general economic freedom (ie tax rates) for minorities (or anyone else) doing in those nations compared to the US?

Granted, some other nations have done a better job of providing equality between their majorities and their unpopular minorities. But I'd argue that being equal unfree is not nearly as desirable as increasing the freedom of minorities while also increasing freedoms for everyone in several other key areas.

Charles

 

[OC for ME]

Please cite the LAW that confirms your statement as fact.

I looked into that very law and it does not apply the way most people, whom of which have not actually read the law, believe that it does.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

If it is your choice to not buy health insurance, don't pay the Obamacare tax. It is a free country after all.

 

[solus]

quote: The ACA’s individual mandate requires everyone in the U.S. to have health insurance, unless they qualify for an exemption. If you didn’t qualify, and went without “essential health benefits” for more than three months in 2015, you’ll have to pay a penalty on your coming tax return.

The penalty’s cost is calculated in one of two ways: You’ll either pay a percentage of your household taxable income — which you’ll figure on your annual tax return — or a flat rate, whichever is greater. Your tax return will also help you determine your penalty amount.


Each year, the penalty will increase to keep pace with inflation and encourage people to buy coverage.


For tax year 2015, the ACA penalty is 2% of your household’s annual taxable income, or $325 per adult and $162.50 per child, to a maximum of $975.


For tax year 2016, the penalty will rise to 2.5% of your income, or $695 per adult and $347.50 per child, to a maximum of $2,085.


For tax year 2017 and beyond, the percentage option will remain at 2.5%, but the flat fee will be adjusted for inflation.

unquote. https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/hea...bamacare-penalty-not-having-health-insurance/

your welcome freedom...do wish you would pay your internet provider tho...

ipse

 

[Statkowski]

But the only way the Feds can collect the Obamacare penalty is from your federal income tax refund. Per the statute, no other collection mechanism exists. So, if the IRS doesn't owe you a refund, but you still owe the Obamacare penalty, that's it.

 

[Citizen]

But the only way the Feds can collect the Obamacare penalty is from your federal income tax refund. Per the statute, no other collection mechanism exists. So, if the IRS doesn't owe you a refund, but you still owe the Obamacare penalty, that's it.

Well, yes.

However! It takes only an act of Congress to say that you owe for all the penalties/taxes you didn't pay--plus interest and penalties, thank you.

That is to say, the statute might today include no mechanism beyond taking it out of your refund. But, that certainly does not mean congress cannot legislate tomorrow a new statute saying you owe for everything you didn't pay in previous years. Meaning, you already "owe" according to the statute. How and whether they collect is a different question. Under the law, you "owe" whether collected or not. According to them, you "owe". The passage of time doesn't erase your "debt". One, two, three years doesn't erase the fact (in their mind) that you "owed" it.

All it takes is another statute authorizing more stringent collection measures.

Nothing at all prevents congress from passing, in 2018, a law saying non-payers owe interest and penalties on whatever Obamacare tax was still unpaid 2015-2017 after the refund was seized. Nevermind, the amount "owed" before "interest and penalties".

I am not advocating paying. I am saying to look further before deciding whether to pay and how much.

 

[Freedom1Man]

But the only way the Feds can collect the Obamacare penalty is from your federal income tax refund. Per the statute, no other collection mechanism exists. So, if the IRS doesn't owe you a refund, but you still owe the Obamacare penalty, that's it.

Obamacare only applies to those who are subject to Subtile A taxes.

The average human dwelling in the 50 states is not subject to Subtitle A taxes.

So while citizens can, under very limited circumstances, be subjected to Subtitle A taxes it is rare.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[solus]

freedom, you have been given two cites...opps sorry...

http://www.hrblock.com/aca-tax-impact/taxes-and-aca/penalties-and-exemptions.html

with the last showing how the ACA tax wouldn't apply...

all you have done is say you looked into the law and never produced a single reference cite...now you are ranting about subtitle A 26 USC normal taxation statutes...

ipse

 

[Freedom1Man]

freedom, you have been given two cites...opps sorry...

http://www.hrblock.com/aca-tax-impact/taxes-and-aca/penalties-and-exemptions.html

with the last showing how the ACA tax wouldn't apply...

all you have done is say you looked into the law and never produced a single reference cite...now you are ranting about subtitle A 26 USC normal taxation statutes...

ipse

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOD...DE-2013-title26-subtitleD-chap48-sec5000A.htm

(g) Administration and procedure
(1) In general

The penalty provided by this section shall be paid upon notice and demand by the Secretary, and except as provided in paragraph (2), shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as an assessable penalty under subchapter B of chapter 68.

Socialist security is voluntary (subtitle C) hence no penalties listed for not paying into it. Subtitle A is on the SOURCE of income (citizens abroad and foreigners at home).

You have not been able to cite any law proving that the Obummer care applies to the citizens of the 50 states.