For a decade, US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas finally broke his self-imposed silence by asking a question during an oral argument about whether people should lose their right to carry a gun because of a domestic violence conviction.
Thomas' questions came in a case in which the court is considering placing new limits on the reach of a federal law that bans people convicted of domestic violence from owning guns.
Ilana Eisenstein, an assistant US solicitor general, was defending a federal firearms statute. She contended that when a domestic assault conviction at the state level based on 'recklessness' may lead to a person being barred forever from ever owning a gun.
But, before an hour-long argument rested, Justice Thomas asked Einstein, "Can you think of another constitutional right that can be suspended based upon a misdemeanor violation of a state law?"
He was referring to the 2nd Amendment constitutional right to have a gun.
He said, "No one would lose their 1st Amendment right to speak or publish a book because of a misdemeanor conviction."
Eisenstein answered that Congress was concerned about future harm, particularly where it involved guns.
Justice Thomas asked back whether either of the defendants involved in such cases had used a weapon against a family member. The reply came back in the negative.
Thomas concluded, "So, the suspension is not directly related to the use of the weapon. It was just a family member's involved in a misdemeanor violation; therefore a constitutional right is suspended."
Thomas weighed in favor of a Maine man who was barred to own a gun after he entered a plea of guilty to a domestic violence charge.
Meanwhile, the last time Thomas asked a question was during an oral argument held in February 2006.
Some wondered that the death of Justice Antonin Scalia may have provoked Thomas to break his silence. A fellow conservative, Thomas joined Scalia in 5-4 rulings that had upheld individual gun rights under the 2nd Amendment.
According to a report in USA Today, Thomas has repeatedly said he just doesn't think his colleagues' jabbering is all that useful.
Justice Thomas succinctly explained, "I think there are far too many questions. Some members of the court like that interaction. I prefer to listen and think it through more quietly."
He added, "I think you should allow people to complete their answers and their thought and to continue their conversation," he added, in an apparent dig directed at his colleagues. "I find that coherence that you get from a conversation far more helpful than the rapid-fire questions. I don't see how you can learn a whole lot when there are 50 questions in an hour."
The New York Times reported that in a 2009-study in Washington Journal of Law and Policy, it found that the justices uttered 4,000 words during every hour-long argument. That's roughly twice as many words as the justices collectively uttered during each hour-long argument in the 1980s.
