Justice Clarence Thomas ripped as Harry Litman questions his 'originalism' argument on domestic violence

WASHINGTON, DC: In a case where a domestic abuser wanted access to his gun after it had been taken away owing to a victim's protection order, Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenting opinion, as per Raw Story.

Harry Litman, a former federal prosecutor, argues that the US Supreme Court "painted itself into a corner" in an earlier gun case. Thus, they felt the need to fix themselves in the United States v Rahimi decision. Speaking to MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace, Litman jokingly said that Thomas, at least, maintained his consistency.

Harry Litman slams Clarence Thomas' 'originalism' argument on domestic violence

Litman remarked, "This opinion was cleaning up a self-inflicted error by the court two years ago in the Bruen case."

Notably, in the Bruen case, the state of New York was sued because it demanded proof of a unique need for protection before granting an unrestricted license to carry a concealed handgun.

Litman clarified that the difference in this case is that there is no originalism argument because beating your wife was legal at the time the law was written. He said, "There wasn't any history for understandable and irrelevant reasons, sad reasons, really, of regulating domestic offenders at the time."

It wasn't until 1920 that beating your wife was deemed illegal in all 20 states.

Litman stated that the case on Friday, June 21, had to go in the manner that it did "and Thomas' adherence to what they said in Bruen really just shows the rigidity of the way he approaches the Constitution."

Moreover, in Friday's case, it was evident that the majority of the court thought that a domestic abuser shouldn't own a gun. He projected that the "originalism" dispute would be resolved in the upcoming years.

Litman questioned, "You can come up with relevantly similar regulations that we used to do, and he's saying society would do. But now take that question and think about, for example, gay marriage. Is that relevantly similar as to marriage as it used to be or abortion?"

Internet reacts as Harry Litman questions Justice Clarence Thomas' 'originalism' argument on domestic violence

Netizens were in agreement with former federal prosecutor Litman as he slammed Justice Thomas over his "originalism" argument on domestic violence.

One wrote, "He really hates us...and loves his money and power," while another said, "The man is a barbarian."

"Thomas woud vote to end his mixed marriage, count on it," quipped a person, and someone else echoed, "If Thomas is so obsessed with Originalism then he needs to divorce his white wife and stop voting. Oh, and quit the Supreme Court as well."

An individual offered, "How does Thomas square his Originalist views with the fact that those views consider him 3/5ths of a human with no constitutional rights?" whereas one mentioned, "Will he cause his marriage to be invalidated as a result of one his future 'originalist' decisions? Must be consistent."

This article contains remarks made on the Internet by individual people and organizations. MEAWW cannot confirm them independently and does not support claims or opinions being made online.