In an incredibly rare televised appearance, Fox News’ Laura Ingraham will air her interview with the incomparable Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on “The Ingraham Angle” at 10 pm tonight:

Ingraham, a former clerk for Thomas, chatted with Thomas about “the state of the high court and the lessons all Americans should draw from the nation’s past,” according to Fox.

Thomas, a Georgia native who overcame poverty to rise to the top of the legal field when he was nominated by George H.W. Bush and confirmed in 1991, has reportedly declined most media interviews during his tenure on the bench. He is also well known for keeping his own counsel during oral arguments before SCOTUS. In fact, he went 10 years without asking a question. However, he apparently speaks when he thinks it’s important.

Thomas made headlines last year when he asked his first questions since 2006 in a case on gun ownership.

The question in, uh, question was directed at a government attorney and had to do with whether a prior misdemeanor in the case she was arguing suspended a constitutional right to possess a firearm.

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.

Thomas is known to be ideologically aligned with the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, although last year he joined the more liberal judges in the North Carolina gerrymandering case Cooper v. Harris because he doesn’t believe race should ever be a factor in redistricting.

Ingraham’s interview should be worth a watch.