Clarence Thomas Breaks 10 Years of Silence at Supreme Court

[Len-2A Training]

Yeah, MA would have to reclassify some misdemeanors to felonies to balance the scales of justice.

In a heartbeat, the MA legistraitors would be up to the task!

MA is still a "may issue" state. All the licensing officer has to do is say they don't think you're a suitable person, and that's the end of that. Particularly in a case like that where the LO can bring up specific details as to why they don't think you're suitable, it would be a very steep uphill battle to appeal that one.

Yes, suitability would still deep-six anyone applying in MA with a prior conviction for DV regardless of any USSC ruling.

I would give it 3 months before DUI/OUI is a felony retroactivly

Unconstitutional (not that MA pays attention to that old piece of paper) to make retroactive laws.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Unconstitutional (not that MA pays attention to that old piece of paper) to make retroactive laws.

True, but adding to the list of prohibitive disqualifiers has never been held to be an ex post facto law, despite the fact that it is.

Take for example, the minor offenses that added thousands to the ranks of PP.

Or, of the resurrection of "sealed" juvenile offense that the juvenile, and his/her parents, were told would be sealed at age 18 and never used against him/her in adulthood. Even SCOTUS would not touch that.

 

[lagrangian]

Sadly, Thomas knows what's going to come down the pike. Note his phrasing:

which at least as of now results in suspension of a constitutional right

That sounds like the words of someone who is expecting that it won't be a constitutional right much longer. And with the way the 2016 presidential election is shaping up I don't thinks his premonition will be wrong as much as I (and I bet he) wish it were otherwise.

I really, really wish the Heller Five had taken more cases and nailed down more precedent (especially on the standard of scrutiny) instead of denying cert on everything. Did they really think they were all going to live forever?

 

[KBCraig]

Scalia was a strong adherent to the doctrine of stare decisis. Thomas is not and is much more open to overturning past decisions that don't fit with his view of the Constitutions. Thomas's concurring opining in McDonald is a great case in point.

Original intent should always be the basis: stare decisis is an abomination that builds errors on top of errors.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Original intent should always be the basis: stare decisis is an abomination that builds errors on top of errors.

The problem with ignoring stare decisis is that everything is always up for debate. The courts would be clogged with cases challenging every long-standing decision out there, including the good ones.

 

[Garys]

The article I read said that Thomas doesn't feel that questions should be part of the process during oral arguments. He feels that the lawyers arguing the case should be allowed to present their arguments without interruption. He also sometimes will feed a question or an idea for a question to one of the other Justices.

Thomas probably felt intimidated by Scalia, in that if Scalia wasn't asking the question already, it wasn't a smart question.

 

[Garys]

Scalia was a strong adherent to the doctrine of stare decisis. Thomas is not and is much more open to overturning past decisions that don't fit with his view of the Constitutions. Thomas's concurring opining in McDonald is a great case in point.

It was also beautifully written, as you know. For those who don't, Thomas agreed with the decision, but not totally with the majority's rationale. He would have resurrected the Privileges or Immunities clause from the 14th Amendment. I think that was more of a reach than the rest of the majority was comfortable with.