Clarence Thomas breaks his silence

Supreme Court judge asked a question for the first time in 10 years, revealing a different dynamic, since the passage of Antonin Scalia earlier this month.

In the background, law professors are paid just about nerds, the kind that take notes in three colors of ink and use two sizes of Post-it out a casebook tab. We tend to have the ability to find something interesting in a judicial process that gave birth to a normal human being in a coma.

So it was that at 10:45 am on Monday, which was in a sparsely populated press gallery of the Supreme Court of the United States Assistant Attorney General Ilana watching Eisenstein provide a quick recap of a disjointed argument about the meaning of "use" as a national-violence applies the statute which prohibits a defendant "intentionally, knowingly or recklessly" cause "bodily injury or offensive physical contact" with a partner.

As a class of Criminal Law One-L drowsiness, the discussion had droned without doing any law dictionary for Blackstone Black Reviews. The issue, as can be known, appeared to be either under the statutes of a given state, "offensive physical contact" could simply be "reckless", or had to be "intentionally or knowingly." And if a defendant has previously been convicted of physical contact that was offensive, but "simply" unwise, the sentence could be the basis for a conviction later under the federal law that prohibits anyone "convicted ... of a misdemeanor domestic violence "to" possess [ing] "guns o ammo?

Related eXtra/News news News Today