Impeach Clarence Thomas?

[marmar]

from truthdig:


Impeach Clarence Thomas?

Posted on May 12, 2014
By Bill Blum


Of all the justices on the Supreme Court, none—not even the fulminating homophobic Antonin Scalia—deserves more consideration for impeachment than Clarence Thomas, and for reasons having nothing to do with Anita Hill.

But can a sitting justice really be removed from office, and if so, when is removal warranted?

The answer to the first question, of course, is a straightforward yes. Although the justices are appointed for life, their tenure is subject to “good behavior.” Under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, all federal officials—including judges—can be removed from office “on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Technically, the removal process consists of two steps. First, members of the House of Representatives adopt by a simple majority vote articles of impeachment, which read very much like a criminal complaint or grand jury indictment. Step two proceeds with a trial in the Senate, which has the power to convict on a two-thirds ballot. Ouster from office follows conviction automatically, and cannot be appealed. .....................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/impeach_clarence_thomas_20140513

[randys1]

1. Yes, he must be impeached along with Roberts

Roberts lied under oath repeatedly when confirmed.

Scalia isnt fit to be a garbage collector, in fact I apologize to all garbage collectors for saying that.

[mikeysnot]

2. Scaly is not qualified to bag

my groceries...

[aggiesal]

25. Forget Sharia law, we need to worry about Scalia Law. n/t

[Atman]

26. Ooh! I see bumper sticker there!

Great line!

[aggiesal]

27. Have to admit, I stole it from ...

John Fugelsang.

But I thought it was appropriate here,

It does make for a good bumper sticker.

[Enthusiast]

36. That is a good one!

[woolldog]

34. What did Roberts lie about?

I don't remember hearing about that.

[randys1]

37. everything, claimed he would respect precedent on several issues

Last edited Wed May 14, 2014, 11:17 AM - Edit history (1)

that he has since overturned, most absurd court in history

he was groomed to go to the court and literally end everything we have accomplished

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/21/washington/21memo.html?_r

and this was 7 yrs ago, he has done MUCH damage since

and no, he didnt change his mind, he lied

[woolldog]

38. Very interesting.

Thanks for the article.

[okaawhatever]

3. Scalia and Thoma also attend fund-raisers which is against some legal code of ethics. No sanction

there. Roberts says he trusts the judges to monitor their own behavior. Riiggghhhttt...

[Grins]

12. More than that...

Clarence did not disclose his wife's income from the Heritage Foundation and Liberty Central, as was required, for twenty years, Clarence Thomas has never revealed the source of that income. Twenty. Years.

IRS a couple weeks ago:
"The Patrick Henry Center for Individual Liberty... “has shown a pattern of deliberate and consistent intervention in political campaigns” and made “repeated statements supporting or opposing various candidates by expressing its opinion of the respective candidate’s character and qualifications".

"...most recent tax return disclosed $343,503 in revenue for tax year 2012. In recent years, it’s become aligned with the Tea Party movement, contributing to at least one of the groups targeted for extra scrutiny by the IRS beginning in 2010. Also in 2010, the Patrick Henry Center merged with Liberty Central, an advocacy group headed by Virginia Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas."

The IRS evoked their tax-exempt status. Time to cough up on all those back taxes or go to jail.

Not to mention his failure to recuse himself when cases came before the bench in which his wife was directly involved. Lookin' at you too, Vaffanculo!

More, he failed to disclose $100,000 that Citizens United spent on his behalf in 1991 to support his nomination. That would be an in-kind contribution which should have been disclosed as such.

Thomas is in clear violation of Canon 4C of the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges, which bars federal judges from using the prestige of their judicial office for fundraising purposes and specifically states that “a judge may not be a speaker, a guest of honor, or featured on the program” of a fundraising event." In Nov. of last year, Thomas headlined a fundraiser for the Federalist Society, a group that regularly appears before the Court.

[okaawhatever]

19. Thx for that extra info. I knew his wife had created a situation for him that was immoral/illegal

but didn't know the details. I don't know if it was the Federalist Society fundraiser or another, but both Thomas and Scalia went to one in California (I think it was during a state of the union speech) and that event was considered a fundraiser.

[MineralMan]

4. Such a thing could happen only if we elect a very strong

majority in both houses of Congress. That is what is forgotten every time we have mid-term elections. Instead of Democrats turning out 80% of voters, they turn out 20%. Think about it.

There can be no impeachments without a strong Democratic majority in the House of Representatives.

GOTV 2014 and Beyond!

[mountain grammy]

14. Yes, this can happen. GOTV 2014! Every election is the most important in history, but this one

could bring America back to a reality based government.

[leftyohiolib]

16. it could be a gotv motivator - gotv 2014 to impeach thomas and scalia

[2naSalit]

15. ^^^THIS^^^

Civics education, a lost staple in our schools... PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

GOTV EVERY Election.

[totodeinhere]

21. The Democrats last controlled the House during the 110th and 111th Congresses

and in neither case did they even come close to impeaching Thomas. I doubt if it will happen if they get control again anytime soon. And then of course the Senate would not convict him anyway as long as the Republicans hold at least 1/3 of the seats plus one which they almost certainly will.

I think we would be better served spending our energy on making sure that we elect a progressive president in 2016 who as vacancies arise will nominate more justices who can form a liberal majority that can outvote Thomas and Scalia. Of course we still need to retake control of the House for many other reasons.

[KoKo]

22. One would have to be sure that this strong majority really wanted

to Impeach Clarence Thomas.

I can tell you right now that the Democrats in my neighborhood wouldn't go for me knocking on door telling them to Vote for Candidate X because he wants to impeach Thomas. And that's if we could find a candidate who would even campaign on such a promise.

So impeaching Clarence isn't going to happen no matter how many Democrats we get to the polls.

That move has to come from Grassroots...and Coalitions who are not affiliated politically but who have enough info and influence to get the Congress to act. Don't see that happening either.

[Jefferson23]

5. Very interesting..K&R

[NV Whino]

6. How could we possibly impeach him?

He never says anything.

[Katashi_itto]

7. Won't happen.

[Snotcicles]

8. As for return on investment for his salary, we would have gotten more out of store window manikin.nt

[iamthebandfanman]

9. just think

if his confirmation would have happened with as much modern technology as folks carry around with them these days.... anita would have had a cell pic of that pubic hair on the coke and we wouldn't even be talking about him.

[Louisiana1976]

30. +1000

[heaven05]

10. there is a movie

'django unchained'. This 'supreme' reminds me of Samuel Jacksons character in that movie.

[Major Nikon]

11. I see an easier path to correct the court

Just increase the number of justices to either 17 or 19.

[melm00se]

18. FDR tried that

with the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937. It failed even with a Democratic majority in both the House (77% Democrats) and Senate (71% Democrats). Congress, wisely, decided that the Executive Branch should attempt to convert losses before the court into victories by by adding cards into the deck that would benefit the Roosevelt Administration and its agenda.

Getting something like that passed now with the House in Republican hands and the Senate in Democratic hands is even less likely.

[Major Nikon]

20. FDR used it as a bluff which worked

Once the USSC backed down on negating his reforms, there was no need to stack the court.

[melm00se]

23. a bluff only

works when you have the likelihood of passing the law.

With today's Congressional makeup, it would be viewed as a hollow threat (zero chance of passage). Such a specious threat could seriously damage the president's agenda and reputation.

[Major Nikon]

32. Not necessarily

With enough of the public pissed off at a gerrymandered House for failing to correct a partisan court that produces shit rulings so far out of the mainstream, political pressure could reach a tipping point. The GOP can only push their gerrymandering advantages so far. If the states get pissed off enough they could reverse state legislature majorities and the gerrymander could swing the opposite direction and destroy the GOP completely for a generation or more.

[KansDem]

13. What did Clarence Thomas say when someone spilled a soft drink in his lap?

"Who put the Coke in my pubic hair!"

[Louisiana1976]

28. ....

[titanicdave]

17. Yes, Yes, YES

without a doubt and the sooner the better.........same goes for Scalia

[smallcat88]

24. Don't just impeach

We need new standards for appointing judges and not just for the supreme court. There are too many people sitting on a bench who never belonged there. We need stricter standards for appointing/electing judges at all levels.

[Louisiana1976]

29. Well said. And welcome to DU.

[Peregrine Took]

31. Why the question mark?? n/t

[Gothmog]

33. There are good grounds to impeach Thomas

Thomas has violated ethical rules on a large number of occasions

[dreamnightwind]

35. Yes, make it so

He and his wife have shown no respect for the position he holds, instead using it for partisan purposes and engaging in highly partisan side activities including right-wing fundraising efforts Clarence participated in. That should be enough to impeach a justice for.

How can we help make this happen?