(CNN) For the first time in a decade, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas spoke during oral arguments. 
 
 Just last week, CNN wrote about the 10 years since Thomas' last question at oral arguments. That anniversary, February 22, came on the same day the Supreme Court first heard oral arguments after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, who was Thomas' ideological soul mate and who had defended his lack of questions over the years. 
 
 "No one was more ideologically aligned with Justice Scalia than Justice Thomas, who has historically been reluctant to ask questions at oral argument because he believes his colleagues already do more than enough talking," said CNN contributor Stephen I. Vladeck. "That he's now asking questions -- for the first time in over a decade -- is as powerful evidence of the impact of Justice Scalia's absence as anything we've seen from the justices thus far," he said. 
 
 The comments from Thomas were directed at a government attorney Ilana H. Eisenstein in a case called Voisine v. United States. The case concerns whether a prior domestic assault conviction based on reckless conduct qualifies as a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence that would block the plaintiffs from possessing a firearm. 
 
 "Everyone leaned in disbelieving," said Slate's Dahlia Lithwick, who was in the courtroom. "The colloquy went back and forth several times with Thomas pressing the assistant solicitor general," Lithwick said. 
 
 "This is a misdemeanor violation," Thomas said at one point to Eisenstein. "It suspends a constitutional right. Can you give me another area where a misdemeanor violation suspends a constitutional right?" he asked. 
 
 JUST WATCHED A 2014 report: Why is Justice Thomas 'supremely' silent? Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH A 2014 report: Why is Justice Thomas 'supremely' silent? 06:39 
 
 Thomas has offered a variety of reasons for his silence from the bench. 
 
 "We have a lifetime to go back in chambers and to argue with each other," Thomas said in 2013, according to The Associated Press. He noted that the lawyers only have about 30 minutes to present their side of the case. "They should argue. That's a part of the process." Thomas said and added that he doesn't like to "badger people." 
 
 Although Scalia and Thomas disagreed on some cases, they agreed on many and were close friends. Thomas was a lector at Scalia's funeral and released a statement after his death saying, "It is hard to imagine the court without my friend. I will miss him beyond all measure." 
 
 Thomas spoke at Scalia's funer on February 20. 
 
 The two men had radically different styles from the bench, however. Scalia often peppered advocates with questions while Thomas silently listened. 
 
 Scalia defended his colleague's silence, and asked enough questions for the both of them. 
 
 In 2012, he told CNN's Piers Morgan that when he was a young lawyer he appeared before the justices as an advocate and was only asked two questions. 
 
 "It was not at all unusual for justices not to ask questions," Scalia said. 
 
 "Thurgood Marshall rarely asked a question. Bill Brennan rarely asked questions," he said, referring to retired iconic justices. 
 
 "Leave Clarence alone!" Scalia joked. 
 
 Carrie Severino, a former clerk for Thomas, said she was surprised Thomas decided to break his silence, because of his long-held belief that the number of questions during oral argument had become excessive. 
 
 "It is possible that Thomas was asking a question that he thought Scalia might have brought up," said Severino, "or, maybe he thought of a question that no one else was asking," she said. ||||| WASHINGTON -- Justice Clarence Thomas stunned lawyers, reporters and others at the Supreme Court on Monday when he posed questions during an oral argument for the first time in 10 years. 
 
 It was the second week the court has heard arguments since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, Thomas' friend and fellow conservative. Thomas for years sat directly to Scalia's right. Scalia's chair is now draped in black in a tribute to his death on Feb. 13. 
 
 Thomas' questions came in case in which the court is considering placing new limits on the reach of a federal law that bans people convicted of domestic violence from owning guns. 
 
 With about 10 minutes left in the hourlong session, Justice Department lawyer Ilana Eisenstein was about to sit down after answering a barrage of questions from other justices. Thomas then caught her by surprise, asking whether the violation of any other law "suspends a constitutional right." 
 
 Thomas's unusual silence over the years has become a curiosity over the years. Thomas has previously said he relies on the written briefs and doesn't need to ask questions of the lawyers appearing in court. 
 
 Thomas last asked a question in court on Feb. 22, 2006. He has come under criticism for his silence from some who say he is neglecting his duties as a justice. The 10-year milestone of his courtroom silence came just days after Scalia's death. Thomas was one of only two people invited by Scalia's family to recite a prayer during the funeral Mass on Feb. 20. 
 
 In 2013, Thomas did speak briefly in court, when he interrupted Scalia, inquiring about whether Ivy League lawyers had properly represented a client. 
 
 The official court transcript only picked up four words of Thomas' remarks -- "well he did not" -- and according to CBS News' Jan Crawford, Thomas appeared to be suggesting that an Ivy League degree did not necessarily mean the lawyer was qualified. 
 
 Thomas' public silence dates back to long before his days on the court. In his memoir, he wrote that he did not like speaking up in college because he was self-conscious about his unusual southern Georgia dialect. 
 
 But in 2007, Thomas defended his choice to remain mum behind the bench on "60 Minutes," telling Steve Kroft that his silence was not due to insecurity or fear. 
 
 "Justice Marshall rarely asked questions. Justice Powell rarely asked questions. That's a personal preference. I certainly wouldn't do it to provide histrionics for the media gallery or for other people or for critics," Justice Thomas insisted. "Critics will always be critics," he added. 
 
 Few reporters showed up Monday for arguments in the first case, in which the justices considered appeals from two Maine men who say their guilty pleas for hitting their partners should not disqualify them from gun ownership. The men say the law should only cover intentional acts of abuse and not those committed in the heat of an argument. 
 
 During the first 45 minutes of the argument, most of the justices appeared to favor the government's position that even reckless acts of domestic assault fall under the law. Thomas did not pose questions to Virginia Villa, the lawyer arguing on behalf of the two men. 
 
 But Thomas peppered Eisenstein with several questions about Second Amendment gun rights, a topic no other justice had asked about. He noted that the law allows someone convicted of a misdemeanor assault charge to get a lifetime ban on possessing a gun "which at least as of now results in suspension of a constitutional right." 
 
 "The suspension is not directly related to the use of a weapon?" Thomas asked. 
 
 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. She noted that violating other laws can in some cases limit a person's free speech rights. Thomas then asked how long the suspension of the right to own a firearm lasts. 
 
 Eisenstein said it was indefinite. 
 
 In one of the cases, Stephen Voisine pleaded guilty in 2003 to simple assault after slapping his girlfriend in the face while he was intoxicated. In 2009, an anonymous caller reported that Voisine had shot a bald eagle with a rifle. He was then convicted under the gun law. 
 
 The other case involves William Armstrong III, who pleaded guilty to simple assault in 2002 after pushing his wife during an argument and leaving a "red mark." Eight years later, police searching Armstrong's home discovered six firearms and ammunition. ||||| Clarence Thomas Breaks 10 Years of High Court Silence WASHINGTON (CN) - The death of Justice Antonin Scalia promises to change the way the Supreme Court operates in many potentially momentous ways, but Monday's arguments presented a more minor if equally noticeable shift on the nation's highest court. 
 
 For the first time in 10 years, Justice Clarence Thomas asked a question from the bench. 
 
 The query happened during remarks by Justice Department attorney Ilana Eisenstein in the case Voisine v. U.S., a challenge to the federal ban against firearm ownership by convicted domestic abusers. 
 
 Having spent the last 15 minutes defending the ban against people convicted of "reckless" misdemeanor charges, Eisenstein asked whether there were any more questions, and Thomas unexpectedly raised his voice. 
 
 "Ms. Eisenstein, one question," Thomas said. 
 
 There was an audible shift in the packed courtroom as the audience sat up in their chairs and members of the press scrambled for their notebooks and pens to capture what occasioned the conservative justice to break his 10-year streak not asking questions from the bench. 
 
 "Can you give me - this is a misdemeanor violation," Thomas said. "It suspends a constitutional right. Can you give me another area where a misdemeanor violation suspends a constitutional right?" 
 
 Following up with nine more questions, Thomas pushed Eisenstein to come up with another scenario in which such a suspension would be warranted. 
 
 Though Thomas has not asked a question from the bench since Feb. 22, 2006, his fellow justices seemed unfazed by the change Monday. All either looked ahead as usual or turned to look as Thomas rolled through his questions. 
 
 He asked whether the government could shut down a publisher who was reckless in displaying children in compromising circumstances, suspending its First Amendment rights. 
 
 Eisenstein prompted another question by saying there could be some measured restrictions on the publisher. 
 
 "So how is that different from suspending your Second Amendment right?" he asked. 
 
 The justice finally asked Eisenstein if the case would be better if the two petitioners had used guns in their acts of domestic violence, a point with which Eisenstein agreed. 
 
 Congress enacted a law in 1996 that prevents people convicted on misdemeanor domestic violence charges from owning guns. 
 
 In the case at hand, challengers Stephen Voisine and William Armstrong broke domestic-violence laws in Maine. 
 
 While Voisine assaulted a girlfriend in 2004, Armstrong pleaded guilty for doing the same to his wife in 2008. Both were charged with "intentionally, knowingly or recklessly caus[ing] bodily injury or offensive physical contact." 
 
 Armstrong ran afoul of the federal law in 2010 when investigators found guns and ammunition in his house during a search in an unrelated drug case. He was soon charged with unlawful possession of a firearm by one previously convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. 
 
 Voisine, on the other hand, can point to the rumor of a dead bald eagle for his case's day in the Supreme Court. In 2009, with investigators homed in on him after receiving an anonymous tip claiming he had shot a bald eagle, Voisine turned over a gun, triggering his violation of the federal law. 
 
 Both men moved to dismiss their indictments, claiming the state-law assault and domestic-assault statutes were not enough to trigger the federal ban on owning guns. Federal judges denied the motions, and Voisine and Armstrong entered conditional pleas reserving the right to appeal their motions to dismiss. 
 
 The two men claim "reckless" is not a high enough standard to qualify as battery. The common law definition of battery requires the violence in question to be intentional, Voisine and Armstrong contend, meaning reckless conduct should not be covered under the federal weapons restriction. 
 
 Arguing for Voisine and Armstrong at the hearing Monday, Virginia Villa said the law considers intentionally offensive action, rather than the recklessness, because the statute contains the word "use." 
 
 Overall the justices did not seem to buy Villa's point. 
 
 Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out that if a husband threw a bottle toward his wife, the bottle smashed against the wall and the pieces embedded themselves in her face, he would still be liable under domestic-violence statutes, even if he didn't mean to hit his wife with the bottle. 
 
 "Intentionality, in my mind, is misperceived, because you think - you're talking about intentionality as the act of causing the injury," Sotomayor said before delving into this hypothetical. 
 
 Villa offered another example: this time of a person she represented who slammed a door while running from a person trying to beat him up. Just because the pursuer got his fingers caught in the door does not mean Villa's client battered him, because his intent was to close the door, not to hurt the person he was fleeing from, Villa said. 
 
 But Justice Elena Kagan disagreed, arguing the act of slamming the door constituted a use of force. 
 
 "Doing something like driving a car 200 miles an hour, or throwing a plate, or slamming a door when somebody's hand is in the vicinity, all of those things involve the requisite risk and all of those things involve the use of physical force," Kagan said. 
 
 Villa's argument took up the majority of the hearing, lasting about half an hour before she sat down. 
 
 The justices allowed Eisenstein to speak uninterrupted for considerably longer than Villa, at least at the outset of her arguments. 
 
 Eisenstein said that states "overwhelmingly" include recklessness in battery statutes. Limiting misdemeanor crimes to those involving intentional conduce, she said, would force prosecutors to prove an abuser intended to cause injury in order to apply the federal weapons ban. 
 
 This prompted Chief Justice John Roberts to speak up. 
 
 "What's so bad about that?" He asked. "I mean, given her door example, for example, why would the accidental or perhaps you would say she - you know - he or she knew the person was close, why would that constitute misdemeanor crime of domestic violence?" 
 
 Eisenstein then contended Congress meant to cover recklessness in its weapons-ban law, even if it didn't explicitly do so. Dismissing Villa's door example, the attorney said it would be nothing more than negligence. 
 
 Roberts then asked if a man who speeds through a stop sign could prosecuted under her definition of battery if his wife is injured in the resulting accident. Eisenstein argued such prosecution could be possible, but that it would be a very narrow circumstance. 
 
 "My argument is the opposite, which is that this court should effectuate Congress's purpose by giving [the federal weapons ban] the meaning that Congress intended, which is to cover generally applicable assault and battery statutes regardless of whether, on a rare instance, they may end up covering an individual who was recklessly driving and injured a family member," Eisenstein said. 
 
 While this point caused some back and forth among the justices, Eisenstein summed up her argument by suggesting the government's interpretation of the law would primarily only effect people who committed clear domestic violence. 
 
 "In the face of petitioner's hypothetical's, petitioner struggles to even conceive of a hypothetical example of where there is a reckless battery that would - against a family member that would not constitute a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence," Eisenstein said. 
 
 As is its custom, the court made a transcript of the groundbreaking hearing available this afternoon. ||||| FILE - In this Jan. 26, 2012 file photo, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas speaks at College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Mass. Thomas has asked questions during Supreme Court arguments for the... (Associated Press) 
 
 FILE - In this Jan. 26, 2012 file photo, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas speaks at College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Mass. Thomas has asked questions during Supreme Court arguments for the... (Associated Press) 
 
 WASHINGTON (AP) — Justice Clarence Thomas has asked questions during a Supreme Court argument for the first time in 10 years. 
 
 Thomas' questions came Monday in case in which the court is considering placing new limits on the reach of a federal law that bans people convicted of domestic violence from owning guns. 
 
 Thomas asked the Justice Department lawyer defending the government's prosecution whether the violation of any other law suspends a person's constitutional rights. 
 
 It was the second week the court has heard arguments since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, Thomas' friend and fellow conservative. 
 
 Thomas' unusual silence over the years has become a curiosity. Thomas has said previously he relies on the written briefs and doesn't need to ask questions of the lawyers appearing in court.
– Clarence Thomas jolted a courtroom awake Monday during Supreme Court proceedings when he did something he hasn't done in more than 10 years: He asked a question, the AP reports. The usually reserved justice—whose long silence has been dubbed a "curiosity" and raised accusations of neglecting his duties, per CBS News—had court reporters sitting up straight and caused what Courthouse News Service calls an "audible shift" in the room when he suddenly started making inquiries. His questions came during a case in which the court weighs whether to walk back a federal ban on gun ownership for those convicted of domestic violence. "Can you give me another area where a misdemeanor violation suspends a constitutional right?" was Thomas' initial question, posed to a Justice Department lawyer after she presented arguments for the ban. Thomas didn't quit there, also throwing out a question about whether the feds could shutter a publisher if it recklessly displayed kids in "compromising circumstances," per Courthouse News. It was his first question from the bench since Feb. 22, 2006—a silence Thomas has explained before by noting he's good to go with just written legal briefs and that he doesn't like to "badger" lawyers who only have a short time to present their arguments, CNN notes. "Everyone leaned in disbelieving," a Slate reporter in the courtroom tells CNN, which adds this was one of the first oral arguments the court has heard since Antonin Scalia—who had defended Thomas' reticence—died. "That he's now asking questions—for the first time in over a decade—is as powerful evidence of the impact of Justice Scalia's absence as anything we've seen from the justices thus far," an American University law professor says.