The Case for Impeaching Clarence Thomas

If they were working together to avoid conflicts of interest, you would not see repeated failures to recuse.

Like most of my conversations here, this is absurd.

 

By using ALL of them. At the same time!

The ONLY intent of the Constitution is described on the Preamble. The preamble is the one and only guide to intent and it should be taken literally. It expresses the purpose for which this country was constituted. All Supreme Court decisions, if they are to be objective and independent, should only respond to one question: how well does this decision comply with what is written in the Preamble?

Anything else is judicial political activism.

 

The point is that there is not a demonstrated need to recuse.

 

OK Jack; what do you think the odds are that they were mutually exclusive of any knowledge of the 'subject' and since they have historically referred to each other as best friends (numerous public video, text/print available on the ' best friends' subject) and the phone texts with Crying Mark M uses the 'best friend' reference? Odds from 1 to 10, with 10 being 100% shared knowledge?

 

Oh, you don't think a man will demonstrate a natural bias towards his wife's feelings?

 

CT ruled against sharing his wife's communications with Mark M and the WH directly related to decertifying/circumventing a legal POTUS election?

 

I do not believe that case was specifically about his wife's communications. It's not even clear he was aware her communications were involved.

 

That benefit of the doubt is extraordinary give what is known about the communications; in addition, you are suggesting and assuming that his clerks and himself did not know what were in the communications they were ruling on? So, if there was criminal evidence in those communications being ruled on, Thomas and his staff would never have done their research due diligence hence not know.

Sorry, that's a weak position IMO for a country who's constitution is only ultimately protected by that very rule of law.

 

I believe they ruled on the principle of whether the communications should be made available, rather than on the communications' content per se. SCOTUS is not a trial court.

 

That is a very good point. What would be reasonable to assume is that at the level of the Supreme Court, Thomas has the resources at his disposal to hire a staff competent enough to research such details and provide a strong alert to him personally that there is a strong case to be made for conflict of interest. The only other thing that one could assume is that both Clarence Thomas and his staff are grossly incompetent.

 

If his wife communications are a part of those communications, don't you think that is sufficient grounds for conflict of interest?

 

As I already posted, there is no evidence he (or any member of SCOTUS) had knowledge of the content of the communications.

 

There may not be direct evidence, but what is a fact is that Supreme Court justices have at least four clerks at their disposal. Are you saying that Thomas made a ruling without him and his clerks examining the communications in detail?

 

That's actually likely. They were ruling on the principle, not the facts.

 

I don't agree. How can you make a ruling on the principle if you don't even know anything about the communications or whom they were from?

 

And what if the communications involved a crime committed by or on behalf of POTUS that was not in the interest of the USA? How can one rule without knowledge of the communications, is POTUS a King? Above the law?

 

I get your point. However, I feel compelled to say that I don't like that 'in the interest of the USA' part. That seems to imply that the President is above the law. To see this, consider that if we allow that the President can commit a crime in the interest of the US. Then, the case could be credibly made that the President CAN lawfully commit a crime IF HE THINKS ITS IN THE INTEREST OF US. So his defense in that case is I THOUGHT it was in the interest of the US. Thus practically making him above the law.

Sorry, I like your line of argument, but I feel compelled to point that out.

 

That would be like using Christianity, Islam, and Judiasm at the same time to answer a religious question. It does not work that way in real life.

 

Not true. The RP was the party of abolition. The RP is the party of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments.

Nevertheless, the RP was too corrupt, too soft and too stupid to crush the racist DP and eliminate systemic institutional racism in the USA when it had the opportunity. Alas.

Thomas, Marshall, and now Jackson would probably agree with Malcolm X's take on our two party system.

“Both of them have sold us out, both parties have sold us out. Both parties are racist, and the Democratic Party is more racist than the Republican Party.” Malcom X, By Any Means Necessary, Malcom X, Betty Shabazz and Pathfinder Press, 1992, P 46.

 

Partisan baloney. The DP just put a leader of the Southern Dixiecrats, Joe Biden, into the WH.

 

There is no appearance of impropriety.

 

Each side chooses justices whose 'judicial philosophy' aligns with their political agenda. Some justices confound this, but, on the whole, that is how it as always been, and it won't change in the foreseeable future. So, until then, which is never, we need a more balanced court, as it is currently out of whack with the electorate.

 

The Republican Party WAS the progressive party from 1865 to about 1920s. After than, it started drifting into conservative business platform from the 1940s to 1970s, new federalism platform in the 1980s and 90s and then into a social platform beginning into early 2000s. To say the GOP is the same today as it was in 1865 would be an outright lie. In fact. Lincoln would probably view LGBTQ as the new "blacks" from his day.

 

Because the SCOTUS in a case like this weighs who has a right to what. It is not a trial court.

 

Trumps enemies held full due process hearings into every charge they could fabricate against Trump. They all fell apart under examination.

That is probably why full due process hearings are now shunned by our political class and its minions.