Clarance Thomas's wife is a tea partier. Should we demand that he leave the court as she

[rainy]

could have a biased influence on him?

[safeinOhio]

1. Yes

[50 Shades Of Blue]

2. Good point!

[VOX]

3. YES.

Plus, he's an intractable asshole and a woman-hater.

[gibraltar72]

4. Worse than that

She worked for Hillsdale college where they murder inconvenient women.

[spanone]

5. the republicans are weaponizing politics....

[VOX]

7. They're weaponizing REALITY. They have an entirely different perception of what's going on.

Trump, of course, doesn't know his ass from third base most days, but it's the Republican Party that's the real villain-- they not only cover for the Dotard, they're going on the offensive for him. Let that simmer-- the so-called "conservative" Republican Party is playing footsie with Russians, while disingenuously screaming about liberals in the FBI.

It's a war over the naming rights to REALITY.

[VOX]

6. Let's demand that the entire Trump family leave the White House.

Since those criminals are all cashing in (stealing, actually) on their positions and access. And we, the taxpayers, are forcibly funding the entire chaotic circus-- we're actually paying them to rob us!

Then there's The Turtle's wife, Elaine Chao, AKA Trump's Secretary of Transportation. More mutual back-scratching. Pretty goddamned cozy.

Somebody write up a MEMO and (don't) RELEASE it!!!

[SergeStorms]

22. +1,000

What you said!

[grantcart]

8. You do realize that she received almost $ 800,000 from rightwing

groups and her husband didn't report it, which would have been automatic dismissal for lost court federal judges. Nothing happened.

[stuffmatters]

12. And guilty of "Insider Trading" as she monetized Hubby's preknowledge of Citizens United Decision

Mrs Thomas "Liberty" Slush Machine (and styrofoam Freedumb Crown) was on and open for the RW Flood of Citizen's United
$ millions before the SCOTUS official decision. She(and her husband...IMHO) enjoyed great financial benefits of insider judicial
trading yet neither were ever charged or held accountable.

[ileus]

9. Isn't this 8 or 9 years ago news...

Nobody cared then...who will care now that the cause is dead?

[SergeStorms]

23. It not so much that no one cared.......

hardly anyone knew about it. It wasn't widely reported. I bet the citizens of this country would love to hear about this now. Some of them are actually paying attention, what with Trump attempting to be a fascist dictator and everything.

[hvn_nbr_2]

10. One word: IOKIYAR

[LisaM]

11. She was on Shrub's inaugural committee. He should have recused himself from Bush v. Gore.

We all know how that went. The fact that he didn't shows his entire lack of a moral compass.

[stuffmatters]

14. Both Daddy Bush's SCOTUS appointments should have been forced to recuse from Bush vs Gore

It seemed the most obvious example for necessary recusal imaginable.

[LisaM]

16. Well, Scalia's son worked for the law firm that represented Shrub.

There was another one (probably Rehnquist) with another conflict of interest. It was an atrocity, a sham, and I fully believe it led us to the 2016 election results.

[stuffmatters]

17. This 1000%

[paleotn]

13. Ummm, that would be an affirmative.

[Mr. Ected]

15. I think the GOP has declared a mulligan in this particular case. -n/m

[BobTheSubgenius]

18. Oh, shit.

How can anyone with power and affluence be a f'ing Tea Partier? Disgusting that anyone is, but inexplicable for someone like a SCOTUS wife.

[jmowreader]

19. No, but demanding he leave the court wouldn't be a bad idea

The guy's about as worthless as a three-dollar bill. That should count for something.

[tiptonic]

20. Citizens

Citizens United sure comes to mind, from her husband's tenure on the court. Not to mention, his own little sex scandal, with Anita Hill.

[Kablooie]

21. If she was a Democrat this ploy would work but it doesn't apply to Republicans.

Republicans are allowed to be as biased and influence judges as much as they want.
That's perfectly acceptable.

Democrats must remain strictly neutral or they will be removed from office.

[SCantiGOP]

24. There are no such rules

Governing the Supreme Court. Their conflict of interest and ethics matters are up to them to determine. Only oversite the Congress has after a life time appointment would be impeachment.
Everyone has known of Thomas’s lack of ethics for years. His wife is a non-issue.
He can’t be anymore biased than he is already.

[samnsara]

25. exactly...

[TryLogic]

26. After Democrats take the Senate.

There are numerous reasons he should not be on the court.

[jberryhill]

27. You can demand whatever you want

But there is no principle under which the political affiliations or tendencies of one's spouse is grounds for removal as a federal judge at any level.

[KWR65]

28. No. We shouldn't ban judges on their wife's political views.

Besides we all know that Thomas is a staunch right winger.

[rainy]

29. The question was tongue in cheek.

I put it out there just to make a point about the right trying to discredit the FBI.

[pansypoo53219]

30. he is a tax cheat. enough for me. but the moron does not get his replacement.

obama does.

[whathehell]

31. Good point. n/t.

[onenote]

32. no

[Mc Mike]

33. Rec 50! thanks, rainy, nt.

[Time for change]

34. No

That would be almost like saying that no Republicans or Democrats or anyone with a Republican or Democratic wife should be allowed on the Court.

On the other hand, I believe that Thomas, along with 4 other Supreme Court justices should have been impeached a long time ago for their Bush v. Gore decision. That's because the decision had no basis in law or logic and therefore should have been seen as nothing but a naked grab for power.

I realize that this is a minority opinion, but I feel strongly that impeachment of Supreme Court justices should be much more frequently considered for impeachment when for malfeasance in office. A Supreme Court Justice was impeached by Congress in 1804 for "allowing his political views to interfere with his decisions".

They should routinely be considered for impeachment for such malfeasance in office -- not for their views but for their actions.