Justice Thomas poses questions, stuns Supreme Court crowd

For the first time in just over a decade, Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas asked a question during oral argument – and after breaking his streak Monday, he followed up with even more questions.

Courtroom reporters noted there was a tense moment, which some say felt like five minutes, when Thomas pushed Eisenstein to give another example where a misdemeanor conviction suspends a constitutional right. Thomas choosing to break his habitual silence on this Second Amendment case may have been in homage to his friend Scalia, who greatly enjoyed displaying his wit in oral arguments.

According to the New York Times, Thomas last asked a question in court February 22, 2006, in a death penalty case.

Thomas reportedly directed his questions to government attorney Ilana H. Eisenstein in the case Voisine v. United States.

But Thomas peppered Eisenstein with several questions about Second Amendment gun rights, a topic no other justice had asked about.

“You’re saying that a misdemeanor conviction results in a lifelong ban on possessing a gun, which at least right now is a constitutional right”.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas testifies during a hearing before the Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee April 15, 2010, on Capitol Hill. None of the other justices visibly reacted to his remarks.

Thomas took the side of a ME man who lost his right to own a gun after he pleaded guilty to a domestic violence charge and paid a $200 fine.

Thomas has offered a variety of reasons for his silence from the bench.

JUSTICE THOMAS: So that the – again, the suspension is not directly related to the use of the weapon. At times, Breyer has said that Thomas had raised an interesting point and tried, without success, to encourage Thomas to raise it with the lawyer. “I will miss that”, Carter Phillips, who has argued more Supreme Court cases than any other lawyer in private practice, told Business Insider in an email after Scalia’s death.

Eisenstein said he was correct, but that Congress passed the law to prevent people accused of domestic violence from later using weapons against a family member.

“The court’s refusal to grant review in this case does not signify approval of the decision below”, Alito wrote.

The high court unanimously upheld that provision three years ago as long as the defendant had used “physical force”.

Thomas hasn’t been completely mum on why he usually asks no questions. “I think we should listen to lawyers who are arguing their case, and I think we should allow the advocates to advocate”. Or was Thomas feeling the need to make sure that Scalia’s strict constructionalist views lived on at the court?