Clarence Thomas Complains After SCOTUS Rejects Challenge To California’s Gun Purchase Waiting Period

Courthouse News reports:

Offering no mention of the Florida school shooting, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas complained Tuesday about the growing stack of Second Amendment cases that are denied high court review.

“The right to keep and bear arms is apparently this court’s constitutional orphan,” Thomas wrote. “And the lower courts seem to have gotten the message.” Thomas penned the dissent this morning after his colleagues rejected a challenge to California’s 10-day waiting period for firearms.

Quoting the court’s last Second Amendment case, the 2010 ruling McDonald v. Chicago, Thomas noted that the Second Amendment is not a “second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.”

  • Rick Jackson

    I wonder how much Thomas’ wife gets from the NRA?

    • dcurlee

      Exactly what I was thinking

    • another_steve

      Why just his wife? You don’t think a corrupt Republican sexual harasser (see: Anita Hill) is himself capable of taking money from the NRA?

    • The_Wretched

      It’s hard to know. She gets most of her contributions from identity hiding PACs in collected lumps. It’s very easy to see she’s active with the NRA (google|Ginni Thomas NRA).

  • JackFknTwist

    Yo, Thomas, so the Right to Life of school children is a second class right ?
    ….subordinate to the second amendment ?

    Shame on you , you charlatan.

  • Todd20036

    Thomas spoke?

    • The_Wretched

      One of his NRA installed clerk seats wrote it.

  • JackFknTwist

    You really are not much good at this ‘legal reasoning’, are you ?

  • Sam_Handwich

    Let’s hear from Dead Nino

    Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

    Antonin Scalia writing for the majority in DC v Heller

    • Boreal
      • glass

        His skills have improved %1000.

      • Frank

        That reminds me. I forgot to cancel Ninos subscription to the Sausage and Cigar of the Month Club. You’re welcome.

    • unsavedheathen

      But in reality, what dangerous and unusual weapons are Americans prohibited from possessing and carrying… anti-tank, rocket launchers maybe, but anything smaller is A-OK.

      • j.martindale

        atomic, perhaps

      • Sam_Handwich

        Several states ban assault weapons and impose other qualifications on purchasing guns.

        • unsavedheathen

          But to what effect? Illinois bans them, Indiana does not.

          • Sam_Handwich

            to the effect that Massachusetts has among the strictest gun control laws and 2nd lowest gun death rate in the US (Hawaii is first)

            but i realize other state aren’t so lucky because of the laws in neighboring states

          • Cipher

            There is something to be said about the culture here in Massachusetts. We do have New Hampshire right next door. People certainly stock up on fireworks there (illegal here) and booze (tax free in NH, substantially more expensive here in Mass). We just do not have a huge gun culture. Compared to the state of my birth (Texas) – night and day!

      • GayOldLady

        Well, it’s illegal to possess dynamite without a permit. It’s illegal to own hand grenades in many States and if you own one you have to jump through hoops. Some States have made certain types of knives illegal as well as brass knuckles. The GOP is going to lose the debate about the right to own assault rifles if they ever allow it to be debated. In my opinion, anything that turns an ordinary handgun into a weapon of mass destruction should be illegal. That would mean that magazines and bumpstocks would be banned and that guns like the AR15 would be banned because the standard magazine fires 30 rounds. That’s not a hunting weapon and it’s not a weapon you would use to defend your home against intruders. It is a weapon that you could use to kill everyone in your neighborhood in a matter of seconds or minutes with one reload.

        • canoebum

          Its progenitor, the M16, was designed for the US Army specifically to kill as many humans as one person could, as fast as possible. It is not, nor ever was, intended to be for civilian use.

        • netxtown

          Cracks me up when they use the ‘hunting’ arguement….like somebody is going to riddle a deer or a hog with 50 rounds and think they’re gonna eat it.

          • GayOldLady

            Or more especially a duck or a quail. There would be nothing left but shredded feathers.

          • ZRAinSWVA

            If you’re that bad a shot, perhaps you shouldn’t be hunting in the first place…

          • netxtown

            OTOH -this might explain why soooo many are toothless…from chomping on squirrel tenderized with bullets…

          • MonochromeMouse

            The ar-15 is also extremely inaccurate and slow compared to similar guns. Its only practical use is to gun down a large group of people inside a confined space.

      • MonochromeMouse

        If we criminalize bomb-making then only criminals will make bombs. The only way to stop a bad guy with a bomb is for a good guy to bomb him first.

    • boatboy_srq

      Dead Nino > Live Thomas

    • Steverino

      It is simple common sense. Second Amendment absolutists need to observe that even the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech does not apply to defamation: libel or slander, and of course the example of crying “fire!” in a crowded theater.

      • olandp

        They always seem to forget the first part…
        A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
        the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be

        • anne marie in philly

          my spouse said the same thing the other night. but then again, the GOPricks cherry-pick their buybulls…

        • normadesmond

          Those morons think THEY are the militia
          and will need to overthrow our government.

  • jimbo65

    Clarence Thomas. God this man should never have been seated to SCOTUS

  • kcken
    • Bad Tom

      Not only were surgical procedures unsanitary, they were unanesthetized, too.

      The first anesthesia for surgery was performed in 1846 at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

      • Bill Harnsberger

        Damn Massachusetts libturd docs ruined all the fun of hearing patients scream. I bet they’re also the ones who whined that smoking a stogie over an open wound was “inadvisable.”

        • Bad Tom

          And they (eventually) insisted that Doctors wash their hands after dissecting before doing surgery. So undignified.

          • Kruhn

            Doctors not washing their hands and utensils was what killed President James Garfield. He was wounded and experts say if he had not been treated by the doctors, he’d probably survived.

          • Bad Tom

            They just HAD to get that bullet out.

            Today, an ER surgeon will only extract a bullet if is absolutely necessary to save the patient. Or it is convenient.

            I’ve read a lot of medical memoirs, and more than a few surgeons admit to liking the solid plink of tossing extracted bullets into a metal specimen basin in the OR when operating on gunshot victims. Just like in the movies. On occasion, a police officer is on hand to instantly confiscate the bullet as evidence.

            One account of Garfield’s treatment said his doctors fed him pureed food anally. It appeared to sustain him. I was astonished. I did not know there was any form of medical artificial feeding available at that time.

      • BlueberriesForMe

        Lots of whisky and a stick between your teeth to bite down on.

        • Bad Tom

          Or leather straps holding the patient down. If that wasn’t good enough, then chains wrapped in leather, to ensure the patient is secure for surgery.

          16th and 17th century medicine was a lot more fun for the physician than the patient.

      • perversatile

        I’m always amused by the thought of those madcap Victorian era youths, exposing ankles and reading aloud passages from racy novels at their ether sniffing parties, (Get your huff on!) being the inspiration for ether’s more legitimate application as an anesthetic.
        (First demonstrated by Crawford Long in 1842, Athens, Georgia)
        “Life is strange.” – Belle Poitrine

  • Tomcat

    If only the right demanded the right to vote as much as they demand the right to bear arms. But on that one they DO believe in second class citizens.

  • Cuberly Deux

    Um, as many federalists and other Reagan worshippers fail to remember….even Scalia was for reasonable restrictions and requirements for gun ownership.

    • Joe in PA

      You mean “originalists”.

      I hate that term.

      • Cuberly Deux

        UGH…..same here. It’s a randomly constructed ideology with zero rational basis. It’s akin to christianists that rationalize the most random bullshit by taking passages Waaaaaaaaaaay out of context.

        I was referencing the federalist society. Their goal to pretend to be originalist & remake the legal landscape into a white upper-class christian oligarchy.

        • Steverino

          Originalists are the constitutional equivalent of fundamentalists: with the latter, if the Near East culture mentioned in the document was good enough for the Bronze Age, it is good enough for 21st Century America, and for the former, they likewise think the culture of 1791 America is good enough for us now.

          • Cuberly Deux

            But that’s the thing. They’re NEVER consistent when it comes to imposing their supposed originalism. How is it even feasible to rule on behalf of corporations to the extent that they always do?

      • Ninja0980

        Originalist is nothing more then a legal term to justify turning the clock back on all progressive laws.

      • olandp

        If they really were “originalists” all that would be allowed are flint lock pistols and muskets, along with the bow and arrow.

  • Boreal

    Uncle Thomas can fuck right off.

  • boatboy_srq

    Apparently now IS the time to talk about firearms regulation – provided that you’re continuing to discuss the removal of said regulation.


  • Devon Rodriguez
    • jayjonson

      Actually, in a just society neither of them should be allowed to marry anyone, whatever their race or gender. The very idea of them even copulating offends the sensibilities of the nation.

  • billbear1961

    The Case for Impeaching Clarence Thomas

    Jill Abramson: “It’s also worth looking closely at, because… Thomas’s inappropriate behavior — talking about porn in the office, commenting on the bodies of the women he worked with — was more wide-ranging than was apparent during the sensational Senate hearings, with their strange Coke-can details.”

    “But, most of all, because Thomas, as a crucial vote on the Supreme Court, holds incredible power over women’s rights, workplace, reproductive, and otherwise.”

    “And given the evidence that’s come out in the years since, it’s also time to raise the possibility of impeachment. Not because he watched porn on his own time, of course. Not because he talked about it with a female colleague — although our understanding of the real workplace harm that kind of sexual harassment does to women has evolved dramatically in the years since, thanks in no small part to those very hearings. Nor is it even because he routinely violated the norms of good workplace behavior, in a way that seemed especially at odds with the elevated office he was seeking. It’s because of the lies he told, repeatedly and under oath, saying he had never talked to Hill about porn or to other women who worked with him about risqué subject matter.”

    • j.martindale

      not now, of all times.

    • The_Wretched

      Were Thomas a lower court judge, he’d have been removed a long time ago for his cozy trips bought and paid for by defendants before the court.

    • Tread

      There’s also the blatant conflict of interest with his wife.

    • lymis

      We could always appoint Anita Hill to the Court and watch his head explode…

  • another_steve

    There was recent discussion here on JMG of Joe Biden possibly running for President in 2020. For any Biden fans reading here, please recall that his deference to Clarence Thomas and lack of deference to Anita Hill – while hearings on Thomas’s nomination were in progress and while Biden was Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee – largely resulted in the monster being confirmed by the Senate.

    Joe Biden is largely responsible for Clarence Thomas being on the Supreme Court today.

    • The_Wretched

      Just Joe Biden alone?

      • another_steve

        Biden’s complicity in the matter is startling.

        “Four female witnesses reportedly waited in the wings to support Hill’s credibility, but they were not called, due to what the Los Angeles Times described as a private, compromise deal between Republicans and the Senate Judiciary Committee Chair, Democrat Joe Biden.”

    • lymis

      The choice is likely to be between Trump (or Pence, or Ryan, depending on how the Mueller investigation an the midterm elections play out and whether there’s an impeachment) and whoever it is that runs as the Democrat.

      I’ll agree that the Thomas nomination was not one of Biden’s high points.

      But if he’s the nominee, I’ll take him in a nanosecond over whoever it is that the Republicans will be running.

  • bkmn

    Dear Justice Thomas, name one right that is absolute.

    • Frank

      The right to lie to Congress.

      • Bad Tom

        That’s not absolute. It depends on having Republicans in control.

    • prixator

      The right to be an absolute asshole?

  • jayjonson

    Thomas is in favor of states’ rights except when the states do something he doesn’t like.

    • prixator

      Just like almost all conservatives.

  • Slippy_World
  • justme

    But living is a “second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.”???

  • Nic Peterson

    The law sounds like ‘well regulated’ to me Uncle Thomas. What’s seems to be the problem?

  • kcken

    From the people who want to add a constitutional amendment to make it illegal for gays to marry.


  • GayOldLady

    #MeToo is coming after you, Clarence. Hold onto your coke bottle!

  • Wonder how much the NRA has paid him — do you suppose he’s on retainer?

  • #DJTK5F

    Clarence Thomas supports murder of innocent school children.

  • The_Wretched

    I have yet to see a ‘guns rights advocate’ assert that they are due arms because they are in a well-regulated militia.

  • liondon#iamnotatraitor

    Clarence… what about Citizens United? …made all of us take back seat to deep pockets and therefore second class with the first amendment. So shut up about the second.

  • The_Wretched

    I take issue with a supreme court justice being so nakedly partisan. It calls into question whether or not he can rule fairly on the facts and law before him on gun control cases.

    • canoebum

      With Thomas, there’s never been a question. It’s a known fact he’s a partisan.

      • Longpole

        Thomas is a white, male republican trapped in an African American body.

        • seant426

          I question the AA part. I still say it’s blackface. 😂

  • Rex

    Let’s provide every African American male a gun and then see how quickly gun laws change.

    • jimbo65

      It sure as hell was enough for Reagan to change California laws when the Black Panthers started open carrying.

  • Cuberly Deux

    What a dickweed.

    “If this case involved one of the court’s more favored rights, I sincerely doubt we would have denied” review, Thomas added. “I suspect that four members of this court would review a 10-day waiting period for abortions, notwithstanding a state’s purported interest in creating a ‘cooling off’ period.”

    • The_Wretched

      He’s showing even more naked bias. The issues are non-comparable due to the different parties of interest, different constitutional issues and not over lapping fact patterns.

      • Cuberly Deux

        That odd sort of issue revenge he’s attempting. You’re right.

    • jimbo65

      To think we could have had a more rational SCOTUS had the election not been stolen from Gore way back when.

    • lymis

      Yes, because the Court has so militantly stopped all the state laws requiring things that essentially prevent abortion providers from practicing.

    • prixator


  • Kevin Perez

    Clarence woke up? I was concerned.

  • TK

    Thomas is a perfect example of why we need limits on SCOTUS appointments. I don’t agree they should be in there for life.

    • Hue-Man

      Canada has mandatory retirement at 75 for federally appointed judges including Supreme Court Justices, and for Senators. You can do some succession planning when you know the approximate time of their departure. I find the American SCOTUS death watch quite gruesome.

    • Kruhn

      By your standards we’d also lose The Notorious RBG.

  • Natty Enquirer

    You’ll never earn your wings this way, Clarence.

  • Lindoro Almaviva

    I hope he will be a vigorous on his defense of people having the right to be service in the public arena without fear of discrimination as he is in his defense of buying weapons.

  • Chris Baker

    Isn’t the 10-day waiting period considered the ‘well-regulated” part of the second amendment?


  • BeaverTales

    Happy Black History Month, Clarence…

  • Ninja0980

    Oh fuck off you bitter hack.

  • JWC

    The NRA is the cancer that has so grown in and riddled the GOP

  • BlueberriesForMe

    I wonder how Thomas would feel if his wife got shot right in front of him.
    “Ginny, I’m so glad we were able to protect our “freedom” “.

    Thoughts and prayers, Clarence.

  • Whiny whore to the religious right bitches that not everyone is like him.

  • Treant

    “A well regulated milita”

    ‘Nuff said. Half our Supreme Court can’t read.

  • GanymedeRenard

    Second Amendment:
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    I’ve always failed to see how the Second Amendment could possibly be interpreted as the right for each and every U.S. citizen to bear fire arms in light of the word “militia”, whose definition has been pretty much the same since the time the amendment was written.

    Even if it weren’t the case and the definition of militia had changed over the centuries, it’s interesting to see Thomas being an alleged originalist when it comes to marriage equality, but not one when it comes to the Second Amendment.

    • The_Wretched

      SCOTUS matters. In Heller, they blotted out the ‘well regulated militia’ part. That the conservatives abused the Constitiution’s plain meaning for their political ends is not surprising anymore.

      • GanymedeRenard


    • bzrd

      those for every man a gun, also forget, that the towns had an armory to store the guns until needed

      • GanymedeRenard

        It’s called selective memory. They excel at it.

        • Franciscan

          It’s selective application of their notion of “originalism” to constitutional law. I was going to say their “principle” of originalism, but that would be granting it a lot more respect than it deserves.

          • GanymedeRenard


      • amandagirl15701

        We still have one here. It’s a museum now.

    • wds

      It doesn’t call very everyone and anyone to have every and any guns … however, the key phase is “well regulated” .. if it was merely regulated, OK … make sure the guns are clean and ready to go and anytime you’re called upon, but the term “well regulated” to me comes to mean, there can be rules, restrictions and even laws applied. IMO

      • GanymedeRenard

        Notice I said everyone, under this interpretation, would have a RIGHT, not an OBLIGATION to bear arms. Per the rest, I agree with you.

  • EdA

    Let’s not forget that for YEARS, Uncle Thomas “forgot” to include in his financial disclosures the hundreds of thousands of dollars in semi-legal bribes funnelled through his “baglady” wife for lobbying on behalf of business interests, which possibly included lobbying in the bedroom. It would be interesting to know if the NRA pr allies are clients of his wife’s.

  • Jean-Marc in Canada

    Thomas noted that the Second Amendment is not a “second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.”

    Maybe not, but it is a right that has been too broadly interpreted by SCOTUS in the past, to the point of forgetting that said right came with a caveat regarding “regulation”; which, for some strange reason, is never interpreted by the court other than to ignore it. Put simply, shut the fuck up and go back to sleep you sexual predator.

    • Ann Kah

      It’s an amendment which has been interpreted to mean armaments the founders never dreamed of. It should have been reviewed regularly throughout the years.

  • anne marie in philly

    so thomas woke up for 5 minutes and said something stupid? ok, par for the course. FUCK THE NRA!

  • pgarayt

    Oh, the ever silent token says something.

    • LeeCMH

      He’s just playing hateful get-back because of his nomination dominated by Anita Hill.

  • ‘Til Tuesday

    Even his deceased (thank Neptune!) buddy Justice Scalia said in the ruling on guns that even though they were ruling it was a personal right to have guns, nothing in the ruling could be construed to prohibit the government from putting reasonable restrictions on that right. I’ll never forgive Ronald Reagan for foisting the idiot Clarence Thomas on the nation!

  • Thomas is nothing more than a ‘whitey’ in “blackface”.

  • JCF

    Suck it, Uncle Clarence! [And I don’t even mean in the Ted Nugent sense! “Ted Nugent explains why he once told Obama to ‘suck on my machine gun.’” ]

  • Gianni

    Poor Justice Thomas is lost w/o his legal guide and mentor Antonin Scalia. He got so used to just agreeing with whatever Scalia said. It’s shocking to now have to do some actual thinking about the law. Don’t overdue it, Clarence.

  • wds

    OMG Thomas actually said – well – wrote something? Hmmm … wifey must have threatened to cut him off for awhile if the didn’t react … ROFLMAO

  • andrew

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with a ten day waiting period to buy firearms so that thorough background checks can be made.

  • Ann Kah

    We could go back to the original meaning of the founders, and just ban everything but muzzle-loaded muskets.

  • teedofftaxpayer

    How much money did Thomas’s wife get from the NRA?