Impeach Clarence Thomas?

[aubiefifty 16,913]

Impeach Clarence Thomas? Nearly a million people have signed a petition asking for it

By Brian Linder | blinder@pennlive.com

2-3 minutes

Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas sits as he is introduced during an event at the Library of Congress in Washington. (Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP)AP

Impeach Clarence Thomas?

Well, if things keep trending the way they are, more than a million people will have signed a petition by the time the Fourth of July rolls around requesting just that.

The petition, posted to MoveOn.org, was past 907,000 signatures Saturday.

“The right-wing Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade last week, effectively taking away the right to privacy and bodily autonomy that’s been considered legal precedent for the past 50 years,” the petition reads. “Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas—who sided with the majority on overturning Roe—made it clear what’s next: to overturn high court rulings that establish gay rights and contraception rights.”

The petition also cites what it says is a potential conflict of interest between a recent ruling of Thomas’ as it pertains to Jan. 6, and his wife, Ginni, who has been accused of supporting efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

“Recently, Justice Clarence Thomas voted against a Supreme Court decision to compel the release of Donald Trump’s records regarding the January 6 insurrection and attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election,” the petition reads. “It has become clear that his wife—longtime conservative activist Ginni Thomas—was actively urging the White House to overturn election results both leading up to January 6 and after the deadly insurrection.”

The petition says that Thomas’ “failure to recuse himself warrants immediate investigation and heightened alarm.”

“He has shown he cannot be an impartial justice and is more concerned with covering up his wife’s coup attempts than the health of the Supreme Court,” it alleges. “He must resign—or Congress must immediately investigate and impeach.”

The entire petition with its statement and comments can be viewed here.

Note to readers: if you purchase something through one of our affiliate links we may earn a commission.

[homersapien 11,453]

Let's not overlook Kavanaugh and Gorsuch.

Lying while under oath is impeachable.    Just ask Clinton.

 

https://theweek.com/roe-v-wade/1014722/did-conservatives-lie-about-roe-v-wade-in-their-confirmation-hearings

 

[DKW 86 7,441]

Oh God of Karma, please come down to DC and set off the Impaech All the Liars in DC Bomb...

First, we gonna need far more courtrooms....
Second, The American Middle-Class is going to need oxygen from laughing for the next 2-3 years....

SO, PLEASE. IMPEACH AND REMOVE EVERY PERSON THAT HAS LIED UNDER OATH IN DC...PLEASE. I Triple dog dare you....lmao

Edited July 3, 2022 by DKW 86

[I_M4_AU 8,003]

Would this statement be considered lying under oath at a confirmation hearing?

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) started off the three-days of marathon questioning of Judge Jackson getting to the heart of the matter.

“Do you believe the individual right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right?” Sen. Grassley asked.

Judge Jackson answered, “Senator, the Supreme Court has established that the individual right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right.”

https://www.nssf.org/articles/judge-jackson-affirms-second-amendment-rights-but-questions-linger/

I am sure there will be a case involving the 2nd Amendment in the near future she will be able to rule on that will put the above statement to the test.

 

[jj3jordan 2,061]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

Let's not overlook Kavanaugh and Gorsuch.

Lying while under oath is impeachable.    Just ask Clinton.

 

https://theweek.com/roe-v-wade/1014722/did-conservatives-lie-about-roe-v-wade-in-their-confirmation-hearings

 

Clinton lied under oath to a grand jury.  
 

Gorsuch and Kavanagh can’t give a ruling on a hypothetical case or say how they would rule. That would be pre judging and questioners know that. So they ramble and give nebulous answers which at best might be true at the present time. When the case gets there and the facts are heard they can rule. Everybody knows that. Even you homer. Typical.

[homersapien 11,453]

22 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Would this statement be considered lying under oath at a confirmation hearing?

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) started off the three-days of marathon questioning of Judge Jackson getting to the heart of the matter.

“Do you believe the individual right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right?” Sen. Grassley asked.

Judge Jackson answered, “Senator, the Supreme Court has established that the individual right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right.”

https://www.nssf.org/articles/judge-jackson-affirms-second-amendment-rights-but-questions-linger/

I am sure there will be a case involving the 2nd Amendment in the near future she will be able to rule on that will put the above statement to the test.

 

Unsurprisingly, you left out the preamble of that statement.

That's kind of critical, at least to "originalists".

Edited July 4, 2022 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,453]

Clarence Thomas is a dishonest and a despicable man driven by grievance.

 

 

 

https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/gay-state-supreme-court-justice-accuses-justice-clarence-thomas-of-marriage-hypocrisy/

Gay State Supreme Court Justice Accuses Justice Clarence Thomas of Marriage Hypocrisy

 

Edited July 4, 2022 by homersapien

[I_M4_AU 8,003]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Unsurprisingly, you left out the preamble of that statement.

That's kind of critical, at least to "originalists".

I’m not sure what you are talking about.  I quoted Sen. Grassley’s question verbatim according to the article.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

23 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Clinton lied under oath to a grand jury.  
 

Gorsuch and Kavanagh can’t give a ruling on a hypothetical case or say how they would rule. That would be pre judging and questioners know that. So they ramble and give nebulous answers which at best might be true at the present time. When the case gets there and the facts are heard they can rule. Everybody knows that. Even you homer. Typical.

Susan Collins didn't.

[homersapien 11,453]

6 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

I’m not sure what you are talking about.  I quoted Sen. Grassley’s question verbatim according to the article.

I am referring to the complete text of the 2nd Amendment.  Look it up.

[I_M4_AU 8,003]

10 hours ago, homersapien said:

I am referring to the complete text of the 2nd Amendment.  Look it up.

Here you go again.  I quoted Grassley exactly what he said and you complain that I left out a statement.  Can you get anything truthful?  So your complaint, if I get this right, is Grassley left off the preamble, not me.  Is that right?

[DKW 86 7,441]

18 hours ago, homersapien said:

Clarence Thomas is a dishonest and a despicable man driven by grievance.

 

 

 

https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/gay-state-supreme-court-justice-accuses-justice-clarence-thomas-of-marriage-hypocrisy/

Gay State Supreme Court Justice Accuses Justice Clarence Thomas of Marriage Hypocrisy

 

Post of the Day. How JCT can even question marriage rules in the wake of Loving is just crazy. 

[homersapien 11,453]

7 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Here you go again.  I quoted Grassley exactly what he said and you complain that I left out a statement.  Can you get anything truthful?  So your complaint, if I get this right, is Grassley left off the preamble, not me.  Is that right?

Correct.

 

[CoffeeTiger 5,180]

Wouldn't be an issue if people had believed and listened to Anita Hill. 

 

[homersapien 11,453]

6 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Wouldn't be an issue if people had believed and listened to Anita Hill. 

 

And as my (conservative) father pointed out at the time, she had zero reason to lie about that.  Just the opposite.

[homersapien 11,453]

https://www.npr.org/2022/03/30/1089595933/legal-ethics-experts-agree-justice-thomas-must-recuse-in-insurrection-cases

Legal ethics experts agree: Justice Thomas must recuse in insurrection cases

 

But of coarse, he didn't.

[I_M4_AU 8,003]

1 hour ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Wouldn't be an issue if people had believed and listened to Anita Hill. 

 

Thank Joe Biden for that.

https://medium.com/the-establishment/we-cant-forget-the-ways-joe-biden-failed-anita-hill-553bd4d31f38

 

[CoffeeTiger 5,180]

3 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Thank Joe Biden for that.

https://medium.com/the-establishment/we-cant-forget-the-ways-joe-biden-failed-anita-hill-553bd4d31f38

 

 

Yes, In his career Joe Biden has been wrong about a lot of things. 

[homersapien 11,453]

19 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

Yes, In his career Joe Biden has been wrong about a lot of things. 

Well, at least he hasn't tried to seize power in a political coup.

Admittedly, that's a pretty low standard, but unfortunately, highly relevant.

Edited July 6, 2022 by homersapien

[icanthearyou 4,463]

19 hours ago, homersapien said:

https://www.npr.org/2022/03/30/1089595933/legal-ethics-experts-agree-justice-thomas-must-recuse-in-insurrection-cases

Legal ethics experts agree: Justice Thomas must recuse in insurrection cases

 

But of coarse, he didn't.

The Federalist Society does not need the opinions of legal ethics experts.  They have their own facts,,, ethics.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 7/3/2022 at 11:18 AM, aubiefifty said:

The petition also cites what it says is a potential conflict of interest between a recent ruling of Thomas’ as it pertains to Jan. 6, and his wife, Ginni, who has been accused of supporting efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

But rest assured: Ruth Ginsburg can serve as general counsel for the ACLU, sit on its board, advocate positions on legal issues, only to then rule on the same issues as Justice Ginsburg (it is likewise fine for Justice Ginsburg to publicly denounce Trump, only to then rule on cases directly involving him); it is fine for Solicitor General Elena Kagan to prepare the defense of Obamacare, only to then rule on the very same law as Justice Kagan; and it is also okay for Stephen Breyer to serve as chief counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding sentencing guidelines, only to then rule on that very same material as Justice Breyer.

Hogwash. 

[homersapien 11,453]

23 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

But rest assured: Ruth Ginsburg can serve as general counsel for the ACLU, sit on its board, advocate positions on legal issues, only to then rule on the same issues as Justice Ginsburg (it is likewise fine for Justice Ginsburg to publicly denounce Trump, only to then rule on cases directly involving him); it is fine for Solicitor General Elena Kagan to prepare the defense of Obamacare, only to then rule on the very same law as Justice Kagan; and it is also okay for Stephen Breyer to serve as chief counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding sentencing guidelines, only to then rule on that very same material as Justice Breyer.

Hogwash. 

Admittedly, this is really besides the point you are making, but have you considered the purpose and/or general moral intent of those interests you cite vs. the moral intent of Thomas's conflict.

ACLU, Healthcare, Sentencing Guidelines vs. installing an illegitimate president.

That tells me something about character.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Admittedly, this is really besides the point you are making, but have you considered the purpose and/or general moral intent of those interests you cite vs. the moral intent of Thomas's conflict.

ACLU, Healthcare, Sentencing Guidelines vs. installing an illegitimate president.

That tells me something about character.

No worries, I will venture down the rabbit trails.

In your view, whether a conflict warrants recusal turns on "moral intent?" Is that the unwritten standard? If so, who's "moral intent?" And as a peripheral, who determines "moral intent?"

 

[CoffeeTiger 5,180]

41 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

But rest assured: Ruth Ginsburg can serve as general counsel for the ACLU, sit on its board, advocate positions on legal issues, only to then rule on the same issues as Justice Ginsburg (it is likewise fine for Justice Ginsburg to publicly denounce Trump, only to then rule on cases directly involving him); it is fine for Solicitor General Elena Kagan to prepare the defense of Obamacare, only to then rule on the very same law as Justice Kagan; and it is also okay for Stephen Breyer to serve as chief counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding sentencing guidelines, only to then rule on that very same material as Justice Breyer.

Hogwash. 

I agree. 

The power of the Supreme Court needs to be neutered and controlled. 

Justices shouldn't be allowed to be their own judge and jury. 

[homersapien 11,453]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

No worries, I will venture down the rabbit trails.

In your view, whether a conflict warrants recusal turns on "moral intent?" Is that the unwritten standard? If so, who's "moral intent?" And as a peripheral, who determines "moral intent?"

 

No, which is exactly why I said it's "besides" (irrelevant to ) your point.

The judges obviously have the right to recuse themselves or not.

I just thought it was interesting to compare the situations.  Ginni Thomas was actively collaborating in a seditious effort to keep Trump in office, yet Thomas had no problem with not recusing himself from making a ruling on that very subject.

I don't know what Ginsberg's involvement with the ACLU or the nature of the case before the court involving the ACLU was, but to me, the simple moral/ethical facts in Thomas's case are striking, even if technically irrelevant.

That we can just say, "meh" to the spouse of a SCOTUS judge's wife actively engaging in seditious activity to undermine our democracy just shows how far we've fallen in our standards for what is acceptable. 

 

 

Edited July 6, 2022 by homersapien