The Case for Impeaching Clarence Thomas

There's lots of possible criminal evidence that gets excluded on legal grounds. That's not new.

 

In my reference to the USA, the 'us' is implied as to the oath he swore prior to taking office. IOW, he sure is no King and is sworn bound by the oath to the constitution he took. I think we are on the same page here.

 

It doesn't happen hardly ever where the lone dissenting justices' wife poses a conflict of interest.

 

But they are aware of it before ruling it inadmissible and there are specific guidelines they must follow as well; IMO you are moving the proverbial goal with the above reasoning.

 

No it is true. The Republican party was run by racists back then and is racist today. For evidence one need only to look at Lincoln himself who said, AND I QUOTE VERBATIM

"I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

That a racist remark from a REPUBLICAN RACIST.

They have both sold out black folks, but in this day and time, the Republican party is the more racist of the two.

 

How can you know if someone has a right to it, if you don't even know the substance?

 

No. The nature of the evidence per se was never the focus of the SCOTUS. The question before SCOTUS was whether the committee had a right to the evidence.

 

Because the substance has nothing to do with it.

 

OK, it was a bit of a quibble and I am not going to beat on it. We are basically on the same page.

 

The substance has everything to do with it. The only way that substance would have nothing to do with it would be in the case that it is impossible for the President to commit a crime. But that constitution itself rules out that possibility. Sorry, your reasoning is flawed.

 

Sorry, but that's a deeply uninformed claim. Lincoln's greatness rests in part on his personal growth and his political skill in navigating the liberation of African slaves.
The Fiery Trial | Eric Foner | W. W. Norton & Company
https://wwnorton.com › books › the-fiery-trial

Selected as a Notable Book of the Year by the New York Times Book Review, this landmark work gives us a definitive account of Lincoln's lifelong engagement with the nation's critical issue: American slavery. A master historian, Eric Foner draws Lincoln and the broader history of the period into perfect balance. We see Lincoln, a pragmatic politician grounded in principle, deftly navigating the dynamic politics of antislavery, secession, and civil war. Lincoln's greatness emerges from his capacity for moral and political growth.

 

In fact, the RP became far more progressive after the twenties. Fuzzy contemporary political labels cannot be accurately applied to 19th century politicians. Andrew Johnson was the only powerful politician who publicly embraced liberal progressivism during and after the Civil War. Which is probably why Thomas, like Malcolm X and Du Bois have denounced smiley faced progressive liberals as racist liars.

 

And, if said evidence prove a crime and/or not in the interest of the USA, it's relevant and not shielded, hence, the justices must know what they are ruling on. The laws defining executive privileges are crystal clear.

 

Nope. The question before the court was simply whether the committee had a right to the communications. The substance of the communications was not of interest to the court.

 

Nope. The question was whether executive privilege covered that type of communication.

 

Be more specific/precise and I also add to my post:
"And, if said evidence prove a crime and/or not in the interest of the USA, it's relevant and not shielded, hence, the justices must know what they are ruling on. The laws defining executive privileges are crystal clear."
I'll suggest again that you are moving your position to win a lost position.

 

I concur.

 

Nope. I'm actually indifferent because the case was decided 8-1. My point is that there's no conflict of interest because no interest was in play.

 

When did Lincoln 'grow' and retract his words by saying:

1. "I was wrong black and white people are socially equal"
2. "I was wrong black and white people are politically equal"
3. "I was wrong black people should be voters"
4. "I was wrong black people should be jurors"
5. "I was wrong blacks and whites should be allowed to intermarry"
6. "I was wrong, the white race should not be assigned to a superior position to the white race"

 

I don't think you actually can or have supported that 'point', so I'll leave it there.

 

Read more; post less.
The answers are the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments, none of which would have come to pass without Lincoln's leadership and example, even after his death.

 

No specific act or communication was ever under review.

 

Democrats, racist then, racist today, racist forever. A little bit tongue in cheek but deadly accurate.

https://freebeacon.com/parody/clarence-thomas-impeachment/
Party's ugly segregationist past resurfaces as prominent interracial couple comes under attack

"In an echo of the party's racist past, prominent Democrats are demanding the Supreme Court's lone black justice, Clarence Thomas, be fired from his job. The racially charged attacks are made all the more sinister by the fact that Thomas is married to a white woman, Virginia, who has also come under assault as a result of their interracial love.

"Clarence Thomas needs to be impeached," Rep. Ilhan Omar (D., Minn.) wrote Thursday in response to revelations about the justice's white wife. In an op-ed titled, "Why Democrats should impeach Justice Clarence Thomas," MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan cited Thomas's relationship with his wife as one of the main reasons why the black man should lose his job. The Women's March, a Democratic-aligned activist group plagued by allegations of anti-Semitism, also called for Thomas to be impeached. The group's executive director, Rachel O'Leary Carmona, said Thomas was "hopelessly compromised" as a result of his interracial marriage."​

 

The President cannot invoke executive privilege if he has committed a crime. If he can then he is above the law, a principle which is contrary to the Constitution itself. Therefore the substance of the communications is relevant, and it was imperative that the contents of the communications be examined.