The Case for Impeaching Clarence Thomas

Only to the extent it shows Thomas and his wife are nuts. And his wife was trying to overthrow the election.

 

Your side has lost all credibility.

 

That is why trump lost 61 cases and was laughed out of court. And that is why Biden is President. Right?

 

Your side lies constantly.

The Jan 6 attack on Congress doesn't exactly help, either. Or their other efforts to kill democracy..

 

Trumps lawyers are also in trouble over those cases...

 

The case for impeaching Clarence Thomas is that I don't want him on the Supreme Court. Why? Not because of his lack of intellectual capacity. Actually he is a smart guy. But because he legitimizes the concept of a black person has to be an Uncle Tom to make it US society today.

Case closed your honor!

 

Oh I got one!

He should be impeached not because he bragged about the size of his penis to Anita Hill, but because he lied about it!

Damn! That was a damn good one! That may be my best one yet!

Have mercy!

 

The courts decided to stay out of the fight this time, so refused to even consider these cases on the merits. So yeah, you've won a battle and think the war is over. You're wrong. You've put a moron in the White House and the country is paying the price.

 

The protests at the Capital on Jan 6 was not an attempt to kill democracy, it was just a protest that some people turned into a riot. What are the other efforts to kill democracy are you referring to?

 

In fact, Thomas written many decisive concurring opinions over his tenure.

Oral arguments before the SCOTUS are a pat on the head for the Supreme Court Bar.
They have no impact on the decisions of the court.

Your assumption that Scalia was more intelligent than is routine racist DP propaganda.
IMO, liberals and conservatives should stop making assumptions like that about black American leaders.

“But curiously enough, the Democrats in general avoided the tariff issue. They did not follow Johnson's attack on finance because they saw its inconsistency with the reaction of property in the South. Leaving the economic argument, they embraced with avidity race prejudice and concentrated their campaign on this.

[Georges] Clemenceau said, "The best point of attack for the Democrats is the Negroes. Any Democrat who did not manage to hint in his speech that the Negro is a degenerate gorilla, would be considered lacking in enthusiasm. The idea of giving political power to a lot of wild men, incapable of civilization, whose intelligence is no higher than that of the animal! That is the theme of all Democratic speeches." 10”
BLACK RECONSTRUCTION IN AMERICA 1860- 1880, W.E.B. Dubois, introduction by David Levering Lewis, IX THE PRICE OF DISASTER, the Free Press new York 1998.

 

That assumption might be racist, but its not routine DP propaganda.

 

The DP's core political strategy has always been based on racial prejudice.

“But curiously enough, the Democrats in general avoided the tariff issue. They did not follow Johnson's attack on finance because they saw its inconsistency with the reaction of property in the South. Leaving the economic argument, they embraced with avidity race prejudice and concentrated their campaign on this.

[Georges] Clemenceau said, "The best point of attack for the Democrats is the Negroes. Any Democrat who did not manage to hint in his speech that the Negro is a degenerate gorilla, would be considered lacking in enthusiasm. The idea of giving political power to a lot of wild men, incapable of civilization, whose intelligence is no higher than that of the animal! That is the theme of all Democratic speeches." 10”
BLACK RECONSTRUCTION IN AMERICA 1860- 1880, W.E.B. Dubois, introduction by David Levering Lewis, IX THE PRICE OF DISASTER, the Free Press new York 1998.

 

Putting aside your flame baiting, when Thomas was nominated his "good character" was presented as a primary qualification for the high court because he had only been a judge for slightly more than one year. Were Dems supposed to turn a blind eye to credible accusations of his sexual misconduct?

........Republicans don't. Have you been paying attention to Jackson's confirmation hearing? Apparently not. Remember this?



Apparently not.

 

I think that is true about both parties.

 

They didn't push anything. They participated in the investigation of the numerous connections between the Trump campaign and Russia. One that ultimately showed the extent to which Putin helped Don get elected, revealed Donnie J's illegal solicitation of dirt on Hillary from Russian government operatives, and provided evidence for Individual 1's illegal obstruction of Mueller's investigation.

 

You cannot assume he was aware of all her political activities.

 

Brownie points for quoting Dubois.

But a hundred years later, Republicans had won the racist vote, and Dems were starting to purge their racists.

 

If this was a one off thing, you might have a point. But it's not, and a judge has a responsibility to avoid even the APPEARANCE of impropriety.

 

Checks and balances are a good thing to have, but the era in which these actually made a difference died when Republicans demonstrated during the Trump impeachments that they will always place their political interests before their country's interests.

 

Ah, The line that was unfortunately used to sink Abe Fortas, whom I quite admired.
But no, the fact that she and he routinely act in different spheres makes it more likely that they have established firewalls.

 

Checks and balances are based on the prevalence of political interests.

 

you may be right, jack. maybe thomas did not know that his "best friend" had been bussing proud boys into dc for weeks.

 

Obama did lie. So, what's your point?

 

They are both on the record that they do not intrude on the other's spheres.

 

Senator Asks Question:
Anita Hill Confers with a tableful of lawyers:
Then gives an answer clearly designed to be unprovable so that she evades a perjury charge.
Clarence Thomas has been a Supreme Member of the Court.

Feminists Demand: Get Your Wife in Line, Clarence Thomas.

Ilhan Omar: Impeach Justice Clarence Thomas because his wife texted Mark Meadows.

 

But don't Democrats do the same thing? Look at how Nancy Pelosi tried to marginalize AOC. AOC represents a legitimate view that is held by a substantial portion of society in the US. But because Pelosi felt that it was a threat to the power of the Democratic party, and thus her's, she moved in a way such as to marginalize AOC. Its good that voices such as what AOC represents be heard. But Democrats will put their politics above what's good for the country.

Another example is the approach of Clintonian politics. When it was politically expedient, Bill Clinton threw black folks under the bus and is viewed as governing to the right of Richard Nixon, a racist. How do you account for that with the notion that you just put forward?