The Case for Impeaching Clarence Thomas

Don't forget the war, and the sanctions..

You put it all on Biden, which is a grotesque exaggeration.

In addition, mainstream economists supported the move, with liberal economists suggesting more.

Even if Biden's assistance packages had failed to pass, there would have been little difference. The Covid recovery was demand that dramatically outstripped supply..

So I will post it again..

"Elevated inflation has been driven by supply chain disruptions and pent-up consumer demand for goods following the reopening of the economy in 2021."

 

Your post is based on a falsehood. I did not "put it all on Biden." But I did not let him escape his considerable responsibility: more than anyone else.

It's Joe Biden's Inflation - WSJ
https://www.wsj.com › Opinion › Review & Outlook

Mar 10, 2022 — The Bureau of Labor Statistics said prices rose 0.8% in the month, the fastest rate in four months. That's 7.9% over the last 12 months, and 8.4 ...

 

And, he's only tolerable to you for that reason so don't try to act holier-than-thou.

 

You'll get no argument from me on that score. The notion I reject is how Repubs blame Biden for everything from their hemorrhoids to the black family that moved in down the hall.
As an aside, it's amazing how the subject matter strays from where it starts.

 

You said it was Biden.

It was the best option, at that time. If we had done nothing, fallen into a recession, the inflation would have hurt even more... Funny how that works...

Long time ago, the Times was in a slump, and the Journal was kicking ass and taking names. It had some of the best writing, for a daily, on the planet. I read it for years. But then Murdoch bought it, and it went downhill before he even took over. It's a Right wing rag now.

 

That's why they're called "the opposition."

 

Of course it is.

 

"The Journal's editorial pages and columns, run separately from the news pages, have a conservative bent and are highly influential in establishment conservative circles.[77] Despite this, the Journal refrains from endorsing candidates and has not endorsed a candidate since 1928.[78] As editors of the editorial page, Vermont C. Royster (served 1958–1971) and Robert L. Bartley (served 1972–2000) were especially influential in providing a conservative interpretation of the news on a daily basis.[67] Some of the Journal's former reporters claim that the paper has adopted a more conservative tone since Rupert Murdoch's purchase."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall_Street_Journal#Political_stance

It's a damn shame, for a while there it was the best in the country.

 

I'm not sure "a more conservative tone" makes a point for you. And in any case the awards keep on coming.
The Wall Street Journal Award-Winning Work
https://awards.journalists.org › organizations › the-wall-...

The Online Journalism Awards™ (OJAs), launched in May 2000, are the only comprehensive set of journalism prizes honoring excellence in digital journalism around ...

 

Yeah, he's conservative. I like that..

 

I don't think there's proof to impeach Thomas. But for the good of the Supreme Court it would probably be best for him to resign to be there for his wife's mental health treatments.

 

Can you get anything right? I was responding to this fake news post, which by the way, you never said squat about.

Who exactly do you imagine would impose this "requirement" on the Supreme Court?

It's more than a little unseemly for some Democrats, the Party of Slavery and Jim Crow to threaten to remove the only Black on the Court for not "keeping his white wife in line."

 

Justice Thomas is admired for his legal scholarship and his fierce opposition to the enemies of the COTUS and the USA.

“But it was in a third case, Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., that Thomas made his voice heard most clearly—by his silence. In Walker, Thomas defected from the very First Amendment orthodoxy he defended in Reed. Remarkably enough, he joined the Court’s four moderate-liberals—Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan—to provide a decisive vote to allow the state of Texas to refuse to print a specialty license plate bearing the much-loved and hated Confederate battle flag. In an opinion by Breyer, the 5-4 majority held that a government can, with few limits, decide to convey any license-plate message it wants, and bar any that it disapproves. This isn’t “content-based” regulation of speech; the plate is speech by the government itself, and the First Amendment does not apply.

In Walker, Justice Samuel Alito wrote a dissent that could have come from Thomas’s pen. Alito argued that Texas’s rejection of the battle flag was “blatant viewpoint discrimination”—which is, in First Amendment doctrine, worse than the Sign Code in Gilbert.

Thomas goes his own way in most areas of the law he cares about—particularly in constitutional issues. He does not mind bucking even his closest allies—witness the sedate but impassioned brawl between Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia found in their dueling opinions in Zivotofsky v. Kerry, the Jerusalem-passport case decided last week….

Thomas’s most powerful moment on the bench occurred in a case concerning a similar symbol—the burning cross. The year was 2002; Virginia v. Black was a challenge to a Virginia criminal statute that forbade burning a cross with the intent to intimidate another person. A decade before, the Court had struck down a local ordinance in St. Paul, Minnesota, that made it a crime to use symbols to arouse “anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender.” Scalia’s angry majority opinion broadly rejected “hate speech” regulation as “viewpoint based,” arguing that, “St. Paul has no such authority to license one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow Marquis of Queensbury Rules.”

The Virginia statute had seemed to be on its way to a similar fate. The state, and the federal government, were defending the cross ban as a regulation of “true threats,” which the First Amendment does not protect. But Thomas interrupted this line of argument to ask, “[A]ren’t you understating the—the effects of—of the burning cross? … [W]e had almost 100 years of lynching and activity in the South by the Knights of Camellia and—and the Ku Klux Klan, and this was a reign of terror and the cross was a symbol of that reign of terror. Was—isn't that significantly greater than intimidation or a threat?”

Even on the audio, the impact of this comment is vivid. Rodney A. Smolla, who was representing the cross burners, remembered in a recent email:

I have never seen the atmosphere in a courtroom change so quickly. Justice Breyer, who sat next to Justice Thomas, put his arm on him, as if to say “I feel your pain.” Justice Scalia was staring at Thomas with extraordinary intensity—the sense of empathy and support was virtually palpable. Justice Scalia’s eyes left his friend Justice Thomas and he looked down and scowled at me, as I was only minutes from getting up to make my argument, and I immediately knew, from his look, that his views on the entire case had just pivoted, and that he was about to come after me—which proved entirely prescient.

Instead of striking the statute, the Court majority only narrowed it slightly. The state had to prove intent to threaten, it held, rather than assuming it from the fact of the burning cross. Thomas dissented even from that. “In every culture, certain things acquire meaning well beyond what outsiders can comprehend. That goes for both the sacred and the profane. I believe that cross burning is the paradigmatic example of the latter,” he wrote. Cross burning, he argued, is not “expressive activity”; it is “a signal of impending terror and lawlessness.”

Thomas changed the law by speaking up that day against the fiery cross. On Monday, he said nothing about the decision he joined. Breyer’s opinion, couched in the dry doctrinal language of “government speech,” said nothing at all about the history or meaning of the Confederate battle flag.

But that history is there on the page, as silent, and powerful, as Thomas’s voice Monday.”
THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY, Clarence Thomas Takes On a Symbol of White Supremacy, The justice casts the deciding vote on the U.S. Supreme Court, as it backs Texas’s refusal to print a Confederate flag on its license plates., By Garrett Epps, JUNE 18, 2015.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/clarence-thomas-confederate-flag/396281/

The DP's racist attacks on Justice Thomas are easy to understand and very predictable.

 

What racist attacks?

 

After the paper was sold to Murdoch, the good writers left. I used to read it every day. Back then, there was one hard Right editorial a day. But the news was straight from the shoulder. Things like science writing were top notch. It's nowhere near that good now.

 

I'll take that as a no, you're off in your own little world..

 

You are citing an article from 2013? And in 2013, Michael Bloomberg was mayor. Bill De Blasio did not assume the mantle of mayor until 2014. Second, the article listed below shows how much the NYC schools have improved this past year from the 2020 academic school year to the 2021 academic school year.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2022/01/23/nyc-schools-consortium-bloomberg-deblasio/

 

Being the lone dissenting voice on a case is nothing new for Justice Thomas and as such has no grounds for his recusal from any future cases. The case you cited had all three of Trump's nominations rule that it is not protected under executive privledge. As such, any future cases involving the constituiobnality of the Jan 6 defendents may also result in Justice Thomas being the lone dissenting voice.

 

Senate Judiciary Dems Demand Thomas To Recuse Himself From Election Cases Over Wife’s Big Lie Texts

Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Cory Booker (D-NJ), both of whom serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee, called for Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from election cases in light of his wife’s texts to former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows urging the then-Trump official to push Big Lie efforts in the weeks after the 2020 election.

Appearing on ABC News, Klobuchar argued that Ginni Thomas’ damning texts to Meadows is a “textbook case” for recusing himself from election cases.

“The facts are clear here. This is unbelievable. You have the wife of a sitting Supreme Court justice advocating for an insurrection, advocating for overturning a legal election to the sitting president’s chief of staff and she also knows this election, these cases, are going to come before her husband,” Klobuchar said. “This is a textbook case for removing him, recusing him from these decisions.”
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/...-booker-justice-thomas-recusal-election-cases

Can he be forced to do the right thing? I don't think so.

 

And yet the awards for excellence have continued. Perhaps you should file a complaint.
The Wall Street Journal Award-Winning Work
https://awards.journalists.org › organizations › the-wall-...

 

You are the one who failed to follow the conversation, and you inartfully dodged the key question in response to your demand: "Who exactly do you imagine would impose this 'requirement' on the Supreme Court?"

 

Show me how this response of your ties back to the OP.

 

That would be Chief Justice Roberts.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/12/roberts-to-congress-on-court-reforms-were-on-it/

 

It was in the post before you asked the question, you simply didn't understand it.

There is an existing process to handle ethical situations for those that work for the Feds in a legal capacity.

 

Calling him Uncle Tom is a racial complement?

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Justice+Thomas+called+Uncle+Thomas&atb=v316-2&ia=web

In a sense these racists are ignorant of, it can be. Uncle Tom was based on a compilation of real life characters, one of which was a Free Black who was kidnapped and returned to Democrat slavery. While re enslaved he helped to women escape via the Republican operated Underground Railroad. His Democrat master suspected his involvement and whipped him continually while demanding information that would allow him to recapture the women that he had held and repeatedly raped. He remained silent as his Democrat master whipped him to death. Not long after, the Republicans ended this horrible dreadful practice through war, and then through the Republican Constitutional Amendments, forever prevented Democrats from subjecting other human beings to slavery, anywhere in our nation.