Impeach Clarence Thomas?

[BluesDriver66]

How on Earth did we get the point where an anti-abortionist, sexual predator, Supreme Court justice who's wife aids and abets insurrection is allowed to openly subvert democracy with absurd, partisan decisions that turn the highest court in the land into a Kafkaesque kangaroo court?

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2019/05/05/opinion/sunday/05Dowd1/753810b7436342fda58ee71a318a89cc-articleLarge.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp&disable=upscale

 

[Dribble]

He had to dive deep for that picture.

 

[KeithD]

i was wondering how he was able to do this legally, but he has the 'jurisdiction to oversee emergency matters' from Georgia

There are eleven geographically based federal appeals courts. They are divided up among the nine Supreme Court Justices for each Justice to preside over at least one appeals court. Thomas happens to preside over the one that includes Georgia.

 

[BluesDriver66]

He had to dive deep for that picture.

Not at all. The roots of our Supreme Court problems and it's enablers are readily available online. Anti-abortionists, avowed racists, it's all one big happy family.



https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/9d9497189c34240bace531983510fb3d6e5f3345/c=0-203-3000-1898/local/-/media/2016/04/07/Wilmington/Wilmington/635956542542536410-AP-9109100199.jpg?width=3000&height=1695&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp

 

[PaxNurgle]

So you have one man- Clarence Thomas- whose blatant derelection of duty involves refusing to apply the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in his rulings, and is swayed by blatantly partisan activism. In short, this makes him unqualified to do his job, which is to be fair and impartial and interpret cases according to the Constitution.

And you have Biden. Unpopular with certain segments, incompetent as far as managing the economy, fails to send an armed response to the southern border which is NOT part of his requirements under the constitution.

Which one, according to the Constitution, should be impeached?

Biden should be voted out of office, sure; unless the person running against him is even more nefarious, toxic, and incompetent (which sadly, is a distinct possibility.)

Clarence Thomas, on the other hand, should be impeached- period. He has no right to be sitting on that court. Not when he has tarnished the court to such a degree that this country is seeing a rapid erosion of the very fundamental freedoms that made this country what it is.

 

[butters]

There are eleven geographically based federal appeals courts. They are divided up among the nine Supreme Court Justices for each Justice to preside over at least one appeals court. Thomas happens to preside over the one that includes Georgia.

thankyou.

 

[butters]

Laurence Tribe on the blatant failure of clarence thomas

"Justice Thomas is giving the finger to the Court on which he sits, the Chief Justice and Associate Justices with whom he serves, the Constitution he interprets and the Nation that pays his salary," Tribe wrote on Twitter.

In a separate tweet, Tribe said: "Justice Thomas violated 28 USC 455, requiring any 'justice' to recuse when his or her 'impartiality might reasonably be questioned" or his or her 'spouse is known by the justice to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome.'"

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...sedgntp&cvid=778e54cd3bf546b691c85d1ad0a03ec9

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Laurence Tribe on the blatant failure of clarence thomas




https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...sedgntp&cvid=778e54cd3bf546b691c85d1ad0a03ec9

Tribe is famous for juvenile silliness.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1584500484274286592

 

[butters]

so... meadows is still trying to get out of his subpoena; if this court knocks him back, could this end up going the same route and falling into clarence's oily hands since he has jurisdiction over 'emergency Georgia matters'?

Mark Meadows is resisting a subpoena to appear before an Atlanta-area special grand jury investigating Donald Trump's efforts to overturn his election loss in Georgia.

The former White House chief of staff has asked a judge in Pickens County, South Carolina, where he now lives, to reject an order by Fulton County, Georgia, prosecutors to compel his testimony next month into Trump's wide-ranging efforts to subvert the 2020 election, including a January 2021 phone call with secretary of state Brad Raffensperger, reported Politico.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...sedgntp&cvid=220d4ab6cef845f2ac44eebd659aae3f

and if it does, and clarence unilaterally blocks his appearance, what then? i'd like to think he might be clever enough not to want to look THAT corrupt, but the lindsay graham thing kinda waters that down.

 

[Pad_Foot]

Lifetime appointments for SCOTUS makes sense to rise above politics. If the court becomes political, impeachment needs to be used....that's what it's for.

IF the court becomes political ??
Please!!
Corporations are people
Corporations have feelings
Money equals free speech
Gerrymandering makes any Democratic sense!!

Constitution as the framers intended? Bullshit!!

Never mind that over 50% of the justices appointed by representatives of far less than 50% of the People or denied consideration by the same minority

 

[butters]

trump asks thomas to block his taxes from being released

thomas has the option of making the decision himself or passing it onto the other SCOTUS judges to vote. wonder which he'll choose

The emergency application to the justices on Monday comes after Trump repeatedly lost in the lower courts trying to stop the Internal Revenue Service from fulfilling a request from the House Ways and Means Committee for six years’ worth of his tax returns.

Trump’s pitch for the Supreme Court to intervene and temporarily stop the IRS from turning over the documents while he argues for the high court to take up the merits of the case will go to Chief Justice John Roberts Jr Roberts, who handles emergency matters out of the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, could act on Trump’s request by himself or circulate it to the other justices for a vote.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...pc=U531&cvid=a97f0b5aa2b34d19b0f0a062dc80841e

 

[butters]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/j...pc=U531&cvid=a97f0b5aa2b34d19b0f0a062dc80841e

Justice Jackson Recused Herself From a Supreme Court Case. Your Move, Clarence Thomas!​

Conservative activist Ed Blum is challenging the race-conscious admission policies at the University of North Carolina and Harvard University via his group Students for Fair Admissions. Justice Jackson attended Harvard and served for six years on its board, and she will not participate in the argument about Harvard

Meanwhile, Justice Thomas is married to MAGA nutcase Ginni Thomas—who said under oath to the January 6 Committee that the 2020 presidential election was stolen and badgered former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows to overturn the election—and he has not recused himself from any cases about said election or insurrection. As of May 2022, he hasn’t recused from any cases involving his wife’s political activism, including opposition to the Affordable Care Act. But Thomas has recused from cases involving his son’s employer or university.

not holding my breath, thomas knows no shame so long as there is no course open to stop him doing what he wants

 

[Paul_Chance]

Lawrence Tribe is either intentionally (or unintentionally) misrepresenting 28 USC 455.

It does NOT apply to Supreme Court Justices.

As originally written, it was written to apply to federal district court judges. In the 40's it was modified to include the word "justices" to make clear it applied also to those on the district appellate courts - not because they (congress) wanted to expand the provision, but because of a change in vocabulary.

Originally, the people on appellate courts were called "judges", but over time, they began to be referred to as "Justices" to emphasize the differences between a judge (finder of fact in a trial) and a justice (reviewing the findings of judges to assure they are in compliance with the established procedures and processes).

The remedy for a 28 USC 455 violation is "disqualification" - not recusal. A party involved in a trial files a 28 USC 455 complaint, which is then reviewed by a higher judge, who, if he finds it true and factual, "disqualifies" the lower court judge from the case and appoints another.

This is different from a "recusal" which is the remedy when the judge or justice themselves removes themselves from a case.

Because the Supreme Court is the highest in the land, 28 USC 455 does NOT apply to them. The only remedy is recusal, where one of the parties to an issue formally request that the Supreme Court Justice recuse themselves and the Justice agrees. About the only established tradition is that Supreme Court Justices recuse themselves when, in their previous role as an appeals judge or an appellate justice they had previously been involved in ruling on the specific case before them.

 

[jaF0]

^^^ Roberts would be the 'higher Judge' if one were filed.

Thing is, Justices are supposed to have ethics and morals and KNOW when to drop out. Clarence the Crosseyed 'Justice' has neither.

 

[Paul_Chance]

They cannot request a 28 USC 455 disqualification from the Chief Justice - he does not have the power to disqualify another Supreme Court Justice.

Now, there is a lot of "lawfare" going on right now around Ginni Thomas, but she is not "a party" to any ongoing litigation or suit, as "party" is legally defined.

We may not like it - but the courts really don't care if we like something or not.

Just because someone has an opinion on some matter before the court does not automatically make them a party, where a recusal request court be filed with any chance of succeeding. (

And it's not just the Democrats who use this tactic, it is used fairly frequently to try and tip the balance of the court by forcing a Justice to recuse themselves.

However, the vast majority of recusals in the Supreme Court happen much earlier in the process, during the phase where they request a hearing before the court and they're used to more that request for a hearing to another Supreme Court Justice.

 

[butters]

Lawrence Tribe is either intentionally (or unintentionally) misrepresenting 28 USC 455.

It does NOT apply to Supreme Court Justices.

As originally written, it was written to apply to federal district court judges. In the 40's it was modified to include the word "justices" to make clear it applied also to those on the district appellate courts - not because they (congress) wanted to expand the provision, but because of a change in vocabulary.

Originally, the people on appellate courts were called "judges", but over time, they began to be referred to as "Justices" to emphasize the differences between a judge (finder of fact in a trial) and a justice (reviewing the findings of judges to assure they are in compliance with the established procedures and processes).

The remedy for a 28 USC 455 violation is "disqualification" - not recusal. A party involved in a trial files a 28 USC 455 complaint, which is then reviewed by a higher judge, who, if he finds it true and factual, "disqualifies" the lower court judge from the case and appoints another.

This is different from a "recusal" which is the remedy when the judge or justice themselves removes themselves from a case.

Because the Supreme Court is the highest in the land, 28 USC 455 does NOT apply to them. The only remedy is recusal, where one of the parties to an issue formally request that the Supreme Court Justice recuse themselves and the Justice agrees. About the only established tradition is that Supreme Court Justices recuse themselves when, in their previous role as an appeals judge or an appellate justice they had previously been involved in ruling on the specific case before them.

You may or may not be correct. However, i'll take Tribe's words over yours (an unknown person on this board) since his qualifications and historical eminence over yours. Many things no longer serve as they were originally written and intended as society updates and (one would hope) improves.

Laurence Henry Tribe (born October 10, 1941) is an American legal scholar who is a University Professor Emeritus at Harvard University. He previously served as the Carl M. Loeb University Professor at Harvard Law School.

A constitutional law scholar,[6][7] Tribe is co-founder of the American Constitution Society. He is also the author of American Constitutional Law (1978), a major treatise in that field, and has argued before the United States Supreme Court 36 times.[8] Tribe was elected to the American Philosophical Society in 2010.[9]

 

[Paul_Chance]

You may or may not be correct. However, i'll take Tribe's words over yours (an unknown person on this board) since his qualifications and historical eminence over yours. Many things no longer serve as they were originally written and intended as society updates and (one would hope) improves.

Laurence Henry Tribe (born October 10, 1941) is an American legal scholar who is a University Professor Emeritus at Harvard University. He previously served as the Carl M. Loeb University Professor at Harvard Law School.

A constitutional law scholar,[6][7] Tribe is co-founder of the American Constitution Society. He is also the author of American Constitutional Law (1978), a major treatise in that field, and has argued before the United States Supreme Court 36 times.[8] Tribe was elected to the American Philosophical Society in 2010.[9]

LOL - and that would be wise. Tribe is way more qualified than I am. However, that doesn't mean he's right (and he is wrong about several things, publicly). There is of course a couple of simple ways we can know.

First, ask yourself the question - if the cited statues does, in fact, apply - why has no one requested a 28 USC 455 disqualification from Chief Justice Robert, given that Ginni Thomas activity has been known for over a year - and it would take at best a day to file the request? (Answer: Because they can't, the law doesn't apply.)

When reading legal (or lawfare) type posts, that is always the acid test. If someone alleges that a certain statute or provision is applicable, why haven't the parties involved brought it up in a court filing.

You could also check online and see if a Supreme Court Justice has ever been disqualified via 28 USC 455 in the history of the Supreme Court. (Answer: Nope. Self-Recusals, yes, not uncommon - disqualification via 28 USC 455 never.)

A lot of what you see (again, from both sides) in the lawfare battles is novel interpretation of statues and provisions that are floated in the media - but never in the courts themselves - because those engaged in lawfare are not attempting to or interested in reaching a legal conclusion, rather in shaping public/political opinion by presenting novel interpretations of the law as if they were factual.

 

[Kindfarmer]

So you have one man- Clarence Thomas- whose blatant derelection of duty involves refusing to apply the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in his rulings, and is swayed by blatantly partisan activism. In short, this makes him unqualified to do his job, which is to be fair and impartial and interpret cases according to the Constitution.

And you have Biden. Unpopular with certain segments, incompetent as far as managing the economy, fails to send an armed response to the southern border which is NOT part of his requirements under the constitution.

Which one, according to the Constitution, should be impeached?

Biden should be voted out of office, sure; unless the person running against him is even more nefarious, toxic, and incompetent (which sadly, is a distinct possibility.)

Clarence Thomas, on the other hand, should be impeached- period. He has no right to be sitting on that court. Not when he has tarnished the court to such a degree that this country is seeing a rapid erosion of the very fundamental freedoms that made this country what it is.

All conservative Justices have violated their oath.

 

[jaF0]

Trump lawyers who fought election results saw Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as key to their success​

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/ip3/www.baltimoresun.com.icoThe Baltimore Sun|12 minutes ago
Lawyers who aided former President Trump's efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election regarded an appeal to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as a "key" to their success, according to emails provided to congressional investigators and made public Wednesday.

 

[ll74]

Trump lawyers who fought election results saw Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as key to their success​

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/ip3/www.baltimoresun.com.icoThe Baltimore Sun|12 minutes ago
Lawyers who aided former President Trump's efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election regarded an appeal to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as a "key" to their success, according to emails provided to congressional investigators and made public Wednesday.

And his incompetence is the reason we know about it.

 

[AsmodeusPrime]

Nothing gets woke leftist more upset than supporting the US Constitution and civil liberties it protects from people like the Democrats.

Stay mad yall!! Nothing more delicious than your open hatred of western civilization and the USA especially.

 

[Bdm20]

Nothing gets woke leftist more upset than supporting the US Constitution and civil liberties it protects from people like the Democrats.

Stay mad yall!! Nothing more delicious than your open hatred of western civilization and the USA especially.

Well bless your heart!

 

[AsmodeusPrime]

All conservative Justices have violated their oath.

Not being a liberty loathing "progressive" doesn't mean they violated their oath, quite the opposite.

If any justices have violated their oaths it would be the communist piles of shit who regularly just make crap up to push their authoritarian agendas and violate peoples civil liberties in as gross a manner as possible.

 

[AsmodeusPrime]

Well bless your heart!

No need, that belongs to Jesus already, that's why I posted those facts.

 

[JohnEngelman]

I want Clarence Thomas to stay on the Supreme Court long enough to rule against affirmative action.