View the latest news and breaking news today for U.S., world, weather, entertainment, politics and health.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas Breaks Courtroom Silence

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas Breaks Courtroom Silence

    Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas Breaks Courtroom Silence - NBC News

    I guess with Scalia gone it is at last time for Thomas to speak up.

  • #2
    This is going to be an interesting case. I always wondered exactly how misdemeanor charges or even mental treatment could warrant the loss of Constitutional rights. Seems the government could pass such stringent requirements that no citizen would qualify to own a firearm.

    Thomas Clarence is my most favorite Supreme Court Justice, and it sickened me how people attempted to slander him before and when after he took his seat. I thought the story of him buying someone a soda and them claiming he put a pubic hair on top of the can was humiliating and degrading.

    God bless,
    William
    Comment>

    • #3
      The Constitution says, "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Which word don't Democrats (who created the KKK and are behind 90% of all murders of black people today) understand?

      On the other hand, I think the whole concept of punishment is about taking away Constitutional rights, maybe even the right to life itself. When we lock up someone in jail, which is totally constitutional, they're rightly denied gun possession. Why do they have to be confined to maintain the suspension of their right to posses weapons? It's not about stringent requirements to own a gun, it's about punishing a criminal, especially when it's a punishment that fits the crime.

      Now, back to Thomas, who one of the only two people on the Supreme Court that respects the Constitution. His question is really about the 8th Amendment (no cruel and unusual punishment), and I absolutely agree with Thomas' question.
      Comment>

      • #4
        Originally posted by Cornelius View Post
        It's not about stringent requirements to own a gun, it's about punishing a criminal, especially when it's a punishment that fits the crime.
        My question is also whether it is constitutional to deprive one of the right to bear arms if they have ever been treated for a mental illness? Where's the line drawn? When I was being treated for depression, I heard many in the mental ward complaining about having to sign a piece of paper to be admitted into the hospital. The paper relinquished them of the right to bear arms, the hospital would not allow one particular man treatment unless he signed. Can anyone explain this? Since when is it a crime to have depression or other mental illnesses?

        Care to take a stab at it Cornelius? Here's a rather interesting find: New York Disarms the ‘Mentally Ill’
        Comment>

        • #5
          Originally posted by William View Post
          My question is also whether it is constitutional to deprive one of the right to bear arms if they have ever been treated for a mental illness? Where's the line drawn?
          The current Supreme Court case is not about mental illness, but about taking away a constitutional right over a small crime.

          Do you mean while in the hospital? If it's a private hospital, shouldn't it be their right to deny service to anyone who wants to posses a gun? The hospital probably has liability concerns. But, the government shouldn't ban "mentally ill" people from possessing guns.
          Comment>

          • #6
            Originally posted by Cornelius View Post

            The current Supreme Court case is not about mental illness, but about taking away a constitutional right over a small crime.

            Do you mean while in the hospital? If it's a private hospital, shouldn't it be their right to deny service to anyone who wants to posses a gun? The hospital probably has liability concerns. But, the government shouldn't ban "mentally ill" people from possessing guns.
            My point is that they seemingly can revoke gun rights from anyone they deem at risk to commit violent acts like the case before the Supreme Court. Even when that person has no record, but only a health record of mental illness. If they can do this, why is it surprising that they can impose laws based on crimes committed? This is law in Washington State:

            Federal law prohibits possession of a firearm or ammunition by any person who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective” or involuntarily “committed to any mental institution.”1 No federal law, however, requires states to report the identities of these individuals to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (“NICS”) database, which the FBI uses to perform background checks prior to firearm transfers.
            I find that rather interesting. No law states that the identities must be reported, but you have suggested that liability may be a concern for not reporting them.

            God bless,
            William
            Comment>

            • #7
              Originally posted by William View Post
              No law states that the identities must be reported, but you have suggested that liability may be a concern for not reporting them.
              I was thinking more along the lines of a depressed person, when recovering from depression, shooting himself. (I've heard that depressed people tend to commit suicide when they're recovering and no longer feel so helpless.) You know, the family of the deceased suing the hospital, claiming negligent and inappropriate treatment, and even that the hospital knew he was mentally ill but let him keep a weapon.... then <boom> a jury returns a multi-million dollar judgement against the hospital.

              I'm completely against the government denying constitutional rights to innocent people based on what they might do...
              Comment>
              Working...
              X
              Articles - News - SiteMap