The VERY STRONG CASE for IMPEACHING Clarence Thomas

[Vinnie From Indy]

“… Common Cause discovered that Thomas had failed to disclose a source of income for 13 years on required federal forms. Thomas stated that his wife, Virginia, had no income, when in truth she had hundreds of thousands of dollars of income from conservative organizations, including roughly $700,000 from the Heritage Foundation between 2003 and 2007. Thomas reported ‘none’ in answering specific questions about ‘spousal non-investment income’ on annual forms — answers expressly made ‘subject to civil and criminal sanctions’."

The operative words here are: “subject to civil and criminal sanctions.” In other words, Justice Thomas’s actions were allegedly against the law.

Let’s assume that Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer had failed to report income associated with a speech given at the annual U.S. Socialist Conference, where the International Socialist Organization (ISO) picked up all of his four-day expenses. In addition, let’s assume that Justice Breyer illegally failed to disclose hundreds of thousands of dollars paid to his wife by MoveOn.org and Planned Parenthood during the last thirteen years.

How long do you think it would take for the conservative members of the House to begin drafting articles of impeachment against Justice Breyer? Two days??

much more at:
http://open.salon.com/blog/steven_rockford/2013/06/26/impeach_thomas_and_scalia

[geckosfeet]

1. I think this is old news, but as you can see congress seems unmotivated to act.

[NewJeffCT]

12. Yes, I think it made the rounds in the liberal blogosphere

a few years back... it got far less support than impeaching Bush did.

[awoke_in_2003]

19. Because if they started making a big deal...

about a Justice's extra income, someone might start paying attention to theirs.

[geckosfeet]

21. ! I think you may have something there. Or whoever advised him to 'discreetly omit data'

might be outed durung the impeachment trial.

[ceonupe]

52. Because they don't want detailed

Looks into their spouses incomes.

one person would be Diane Finestine she and her husband are worth north of 100 millions now

Very few in congress are like Joe Biden was.

[PCIntern]

61. Really?

First thing you oughta do is figure out how to spell our "Democrat" Senator's names properly. Then, you oughta find some Rethug Senator's name to accompany Feinstein's. That's how we do it here: Fair and Balanced.

[ceonupe]

65. There are tons of rethugs as well

A look at bachmans husband and her "consulting"

Sue myrick of NC as well.

And a crap load of defense connected senators like Graham from SC (he's been blackmailed for being gay for about 15 years and is terrified of the truth coming out)

I could go on forever.

But yeah specificly DiFi she and her husbands wealth have grown lots during her active public service. She often votes against progressive ideas and almost anything that will losses the grip of the senate from the career politicians.

[former9thward]

2. A waste of time.

No justice has ever been removed from the Supreme court. One was impeached by the House over 200 years ago but even he was acquitted by the Senate.

[reusrename]

22. Was he impeached over a crime?

Just wondering about that story.

[former9thward]

39. No.

It was political. Jefferson after he became president declared political war against the Federalists. His allies in Congress repealed a bill authorizing the lower federal courts and that wiped out Federalist judges despite their lifetime appointment. Jefferson went after Samuel Chase, a Federalist judge on the Supreme court, for how he conducted trials (in those days Supreme court justices also conducted trials). Another impeachment count was for critical remarks Chase had made about Jefferson. Jefferson said that was "sedition". In the end even Senators who hated Chase voted for his innocence because they realized the politics involved. The incident established the independence of the judiciary in the U.S.

[questionseverything]

51. so in this case we have illegality

and the justices wife is conspiring against the current admin for political purposes

2 times the reason to impeach

[Mc Mike]

26. Right. But Abe Fortas was forced to resign, over way less money than Thomas was hiding. nt.

[maddiemom]

33. But the shameless Justice Thomas will NEVER resign.

Our appointed Supremes need to be held to the same criticisms as our elected officials. Unfortunately the general public pays little attention these days unless a particular decision affects their interests, and conservative right wingers are much better organized.

[Mc Mike]

37. I'm not in disagreement with you or f9w.

Last edited Thu Aug 1, 2013, 11:48 AM - Edit history (2)

It's just funny how the mechanics of the situation allow for a Dem appointee (nominated for Chief Justice at one point), with a small dollar amount financial scandal, to be pressured into resignation (in order to avoid impeachment), while there was a Dem president with large Dem legislative majorities.

But a repug with a long track record of big money scandal and conflict of interest can get by with barely a whisper of complaint, while the repugs have only a small majority in one legislative house, and we have the Senate and Presidency. Scalia and thomas should both be indicted, but the system is acting like a rigged coin toss 'Heads, repugs win. Tails, America loses.'

On edit: he was forced out in May of '69, so that was 4 months after Nixon took over. But he was the first Chief Justice nominee since 1795 to fail to win Senate approval, and this occurred under Johnson and Dem legislative majorities.

[maddiemom]

68. It sure makes you wonder about the whole political "system" right?

The first black SC justice, Thurgood Marshall, was an outstanding man. With Thomas it seemed like "let's just put some black guy in." The whole Anita Hill thing would have quickly sank any white (or probably any Hispanic) justice. How many other justice's wives have been so involved in any such partisan political causes, let alone truly loony ones, as has Virginia Thomas?

[Mc Mike]

69. I remember Marshall said

'there's no difference between a black snake and a white snake', when discussing Thomas. It was ironic that the repug party and Thomas were both opposed to Affirmative Action, and the bush nomination of Thomas was based purely on finding someone with Thomas's skin color who also backed the racist right wing repug agenda, regardless of qualifications or competence -- which is the very thing repugs pretend to be the reason why they oppose Affirmative Action.

I think the Anita Hill scandal would sink any Dem political figure, regardless of race, while repugs like Thomas and Vitter are immune, regardless of race.

Ginny Thomas had and has interests that should have forced Thomas to a conflict of interest recusal in bush V. Gore in 2000, and Citizen's United, and Health Care Reform. There were also family members of Rehnquist and Scalia getting conflict of interest paybacks from the l'il bush Admin. after their 2000 decision. Janet and James Rehnquist got appointments from l'il bush, and Gene Scalia worked for Ted Olson's law firm when it handled bush V. Gore, and got an appointment as a Labor Dept. Solicitor. I remember reading a nice little concise footnote in a political book or article that laid out conflicts of interest for 4 out of 5 Justices in bush V. Gore. When I read it, I thought 'there's nothing on Kennedy, but this explains the other 4 Justices' behavior'. I couldn't locate or remember the source of that footnote afterward, but it stated a conflict of interest also involving O'Connor's family, probably husband John.

A woman I've known for years from my neighborhood, who married a former Catholic priest, told me at a '12 election event that all the Catholic Supreme Court Justices (Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and Kennedy) were Opus Dei members. I never got a chance to ask her about the source of her statement, but Scalia & Thomas definitely are, Alito is an extreme fringe politico in the exact same style, so it looks likely, though I haven't seen confirming evidence. There was a question about Roberts being Opus Dei on this site, but I didn't see confirming evidence of that, either.

And while Alito and Roberts weren't involved in the Court's 2000 selection of l'il bush, Kennedy was. He's often called a 'moderate' 'swing vote' and 'moderate Catholic', but though there was no provable family quid pro quo for his 2000 decision, he didn't show much moderate swing either. Same for his Citizens United and Voting Rights Act rulings.

Sorry about the unsubstantiated stuff I wrote here to you about O'Connor and Kennedy, I realize my say so isn't proof, but I'm not trying to deal you red herrings, just saying what I remember or conjecture.

[former9thward]

38. Money did not do Fortas in.

He had a continuing unethical relationship with LBJ. LBJ consulted with Fortas over matters before the court and Fortas sought a presidential pardon for a friend of his then under indictment. When those stories came out people went to Fortas to get him to resign.

[Mc Mike]

44. The $20 k retainer fee and yearly fee from Lou Wolfson's family foundation

looked like a financial quid pro quo for Fortas's alleged pardon request to Johnson. The $15k speaker fees from American University Law school helped scuttle his nomination as Chief Justice the year before.

Small potatoes compared to Thomas's financial conflict of interest. But there was a financial angle to Fortas's friendship with Wolfson, though he returned the retainer, recused himself from the Supreme Court case, and denied lobbying Johnson for the pardon.

Wolfson later surreptiously taped a conversation with ex-Justice Fortas, and Wolfson's lawyer Bud Fensterwald turned over a transcript of the conversation to Bob Woodward. Nixon A.G. Mitchell and Earl Warren were among the people who went to Fortas to get him to resign. Looks like a Watergate-themed swirl of events around Fortas's ouster, with Nixon's side benefitting.

[The Magistrate]

3. Hear Hear, Sir

Every signature was a crime, thirteen times. A crime against the integrity of the Judiciary.

[MineralMan]

4. You know that there is a GOP majority in the House, right.

There will be no impeachment.

GOTV 2014!

[Vinnie From Indy]

6. Thanks!

That explains a lot of shit that was pissing me off!



Cheers!

[awoke_in_2003]

20. Wouldn't matter anyway...

no congress person would take this on, or else someone might look into their extra unreported incomes.

[Doctor_J]

64. This info was known when we had the House, Senate, and WH

nothing was done about it then, and nothing ever will be done about it, regardless of which party hsa a majority in the House.

[MineralMan]

67. This is most certainly true.

Apologies to Martin Luther.

[chervilant]

5. Yeah, big surprise...

He got caught, and he likely took that risk (of getting caught) knowing how unlikely was his risk of retribution.

[DrDan]

7. will not happen . . .this has been known for years

[A Simple Game]

8. The irony of this situation is that this guy can plead

ignorance of the law and everyone will believe him.

[Curmudgeoness]

9. Not only will he be believe,

it will probably be true. I think my cat has a higher IQ, or at least more sense and scruples.

[A Simple Game]

10. Ok I can top that. I know all cats have more smarts, sense, and scruples.

Signed: A cat person who also has two dogs.

Yeah, and both of my dogs have more smarts, sense, and scruples too! Ok, the one just barely, but he is just a pup.

[heaven05]

11. that's

a good one. Yet true, sadly. I wish we could get rid of that joke of judge.

[pnwmom]

13. A strong case but almost zero chance to get it through the House. n/t

[reusrename]

46. This should be THE issue for the midterms.

The way Republicans won the House was by creating national issues.

This is a national issue. The public will respond. Turnout will higher if folks know the stakes.

This issue is what the midterms should be fought over, whether we win or lose on actual impeachment.

Am I looking at this wrong?

[pnwmom]

54. I think THE issue will continue to be the economy. Most non-DUers aren't

very attuned to the importance of SCOTUS, but they're still worried about their jobs and their economic futures.

[reusrename]

56. Continue to be about the economy?

When have folks ever voted in their economic best interests?

Clinton gave us the best economy ever and what we get for it? We got eight years of dubbya.

People care about crime. It's only politicians who want to gloss over it.

It's almost comical the way some folks criminality is nothing until Obama makes a declaration.

If he went after crimes on the Supreme Court like he goes after whistleblowers the Republicans would be destroyed.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

14. Why not just prosecute him for the crime?

Prosecute and let the repigs explain why they won't impeach. let him sit on the bench with a felony conviction

[reusrename]

47. There's a lot of win in this.

It makes a lot of sense to me.

[Politicub]

15. Sign me up!

Would love to see this happen.

[UTUSN]

16. R#44 & K for, Clarence was Poppy's template, who was Poppy's "KKKarl"?!1 n/t

[Bethany Rockafella]

17. He's not a Democrat

That's why he got away with it.

[chuckstevens]

18. It Will NEVER Happen!

The Democrats are too wimpy. If Bush/Cheney could lie the country into war and Pelosi said "impeachment was off the table", do you really think amyone will pursue it?

[Egalitarian Thug]

27. Not wimpy so much as unwilling to start a process that might get loose

and end up eating them as well.

That's the problem in any criminal organization, everybody in it is a criminal.

Can you imagine the overcrowded conditions at the few club fed facilities if prosecutors started prosecuting everybody in DC that has lied under oath, on a form, or unlawfully profited from their position? Every republican and 98% of the Democrats would be felons and nobody but the poor would remain in Washington.

[cali]

23. If only, but never just about sums it up

Even if there was a dem majority in the House with lots of liberals in leadership. They wouldn't want to set a precedent for removing a justice. yes, one was impeached a couple of centuries ago, but that's it.

[Tesha]

24. Such short memories....

It's difficult to believe you all don't remember...

This is what Weiner was attempting to do when he was suddenly outed by conservative hit squads.


No one in power is going to risk starting this again, even the most benign foible will be made to look like a major crime.

[noiretextatique]

25. so utterly sad that we have to be resigned to having this criminal

on the court. also sad that nothing can be done to remove him, so like most of our political class, he is above the law he has sworn to uphold. what is the point of voting...of voting Democratic when nothing can get done? I am not looking for a lecture...been in this fight since many people here were voting for raygun, or your parents were. I think I have lost faith in our ability to change this country.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

28. Of the conservative groups from with the Thomas family took money

How many of them were plaintiffs and/or defendants or filed briefs before the court?

That goes beyond failure to disclose income.

Just saying...

[warrprayer]

29. remember in boomer grade school

we were taught about the Russian totalitarian society, where the government had complete control of the television and newspapers, and everyones phones were wiretapped, etc? We have become what we were taught to fear.

[Javaman]

30. I will commence with the holding of the breath now. nt

[Blue Owl]

31. WHOA

Please, proceed with the impeachment.

[bemildred]

32. Another reason to throw most of the Congress out. nt

[Octafish]

34. Made man of the BFEE

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1283869

[City Lights]

35. It'll never happen.

Ever.

[leftyohiolib]

36. until dems take back the house slappy is safe

[uponit7771]

40. ***EXACTLY*** USSCJ have been impeached for MUCH less than Scalia and Thomas have done

[Dollface]

41. I was thinking this just the other day. He brings nothing to the Court except Scalia's second vote.

[mountain grammy]

42. That he was confirmed at all is still a travesty..

That he still sits on the bench, what can we say? Of course he should resign or be impeached. We've had plenty of corrupt judges in our history, but Thomas is one of the worst (along with fat Tony.)

I should on live long enough to dance on his grave, and fat Tony's too. Despicable men, both of them.

[Gothmog]

43. We need to take control of the House

If the Democrats get control of the House, this should be a top priority

[LiberalLovinLug]

48. Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuut....

...It won't be.


The top priority will be to NOT stir anything up that could be perceived as an attack on conservatives. To do nothing that may be interpreted by FAUX News etc.. as some kind of Liberal offensive. Why?..because all the focus will be to assure the mythological conservative majority that Hillary and the Democrats are not "fucking liberal retards" going into the 2016 elections.

[The Wizard]

45. One of the felonious five

that handed the White House to the Bush cartel, while his wife was on the Bush transition team. He personally gained as a result of that disastrous ruling. Can you say conflict of interest?

[KansDem]

49. If I recall correctly, it was because he didn't understand the instructions...

...on the form.

A Supreme Court Justice who doesn't understand the instructions on a simple form.

Yeah, right...uh-huh

[FreepFryer]

50. Groundswell Sockpuppets Priority One

Something tells me this issue just jumped to the top of the Groundswell Google Group action item list.

HBGary Sockpuppets... go!

[dreamnightwind]

53. Calling Eric Holder

Eric Holder to the white courtesy phone. Great post, and he should be prosecuted, it would be a start.

If nothing else, a prosecution would bring greater scrutiny and public awareness to this travesty of a justice, and his actions, coupled with those of his wife, would be pretty hard to defend in th court of public opinion.

[louis-t]

55. I would say "his alleged actions" were against the law because

if someone does this, it's definitely against the law.

[emsimon33]

57. Anthony Weiner was going to try and see what happened to him!

Long before Snowden confirmed my suspicions, I suspected that the peccadilloes of elected leaders who threatened the power structure would be revealed in order to end their threat. And the necessary information was being gathered by illegal means of spying through digital media.

[questionseverything]

58. ty for reminding me weiner was trying to bring thomas to justice

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/wonder-why-anthony-weiner-was-attacke

[Iwillnevergiveup]

59. Well, this from Joy Ann Reid (GRIO)

There's always Ginny.

http://thegrio.com/2013/07/30/clarence-thomas-still-has-a-conflict-of-interest-by-the-name-of-ginny/

[JackHughes]

60. Thomas & Alito should both be impeached

Thomas and Alito both committed perjury during their confirmation hearings.

Thomas, of course, lied about his sexual harassment of Anita Hill -- and a host of other women.

Alito lied about his membership in the Federalist Society --claiming that he didn't know what their political agenda was.

One could also make the case that Scalia is "legally insane," since he has stated publicly that proof of innocence is insufficient grounds to stop an execution.

[ck4829]

62. K&R

[spanone]

63. k&r...

[truedelphi]

66. There are eight other names I would like to add to the

Impeachment charges. No one sitting at the bench of the nation's highest court would be there without the Corporate- established puppet strings.