 Thomas argued that the opinion of the court goes against common sense and that the decision paid little attention to courtroom security issues.Later in his opinion, Thomas stated “there was no consensus that supports elevating the rule against shackling to a federal constitutional command.” Thomas argues “there is no tradition barring the use of shackles or other restraints at sentencing.” Thomas even states that recent courts have articulated that the “rule against visible shackled does not apply to sentencing.See, e.g., "State v. Young", 853 P.2d 327, 350 (Utah 1993); "Duckett v. State", 104 Nev. 6, 11, 752 P.2d 752, 755 (1988) (per curiam); "State v. Franklin", 97 Ohio St. 3d 1, 18—19, 776 N. E. 2d 26, 46—47 (2002);” 
Thomas then wrote about the three modern cases the majority talked about in their opinion.