 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. 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. 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. 06:39 
 
 Thomas has offered a variety of reasons for his silence from the bench. Thomas has previously said he relies on the written briefs and doesn't need to ask questions of the lawyers appearing in court. Bill Brennan rarely asked questions," he said, referring to retired iconic justices. 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." 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. 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. "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. "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. 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.
– 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.