The Case for Impeaching Clarence Thomas

Incorrect.

 

It depends on whether the man is a Republican or Democrat. Ted Kennedy was not only tolerated he was beloved in Washington.

 

If Ted Kennedy drove a Volkswagen he could have been President.

 

There wouldn't be any adults eligible.

 

We have ethical standards for judges; there's a number things that will keep you out of the black robe.

You need some Right wing legal beagles taking your position. They appear to nonexistent, I wonder why that is..

 

And when, exactly, did he get on the SC???

 

This is not a legal question.

 

You need better excuses.

 

You know Jack, you made a comment about Lawrence Tribe, asserting "He's a devalued currency." I can hardly think of anything that devalues your's more than refusing to admit Thomas ruling on a case involving the release of information including his wife's delusional texts called for his recusal. You're welcome to hold that opinion, but in so doing you forfeit all your credibility.

 

Actually, I don't need any excuses at all.

 

Thank God he never did. My comment was in response to a specific comment "No allegation of drunken teenage misbehavior is relevant to any adult's employment" not just to SC positions.

 

1. There is no evidence that Thomas (or any SCOTUS member) was aware that Mrs. Thomas's texts were included.
2. More broadly, there is no connection between his role and her activities. Whether her texts were delusional is irrelevant.
3. There are numerous examples on the left of spousal activities that did not lead to judicial recusals. This is only an issue because it involves Clarence Thomas.
4. I hope you are not too disappointed when I tell you I'm indifferent to your view of my credibility.

 

He would never have been considered. If Republicans hadn't gone crazy, neither would Kavanaugh.

 

Not at all. I'd expect nothing less. I've grown accustomed to your indifference on many matters. Among them science. Indifference to truths, both subjective and objective, being your stock and trade.

 

You need a semi full of them, and you know it.

 

As you wish. I do not stoop to insults of fellow posters.

 

Nope. That's another of your misjudgments.

 

I hope you are not too disappointed when I tell you I'm indifferent to your view of what constitutes an insult.

 

Ever since she became a welcome guest at Trump’s residences, Thomas—an influential and longtime conservative activist, and wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas—had perfected a proven formula of enthralling and manipulating the president’s emotions and mood. On multiple occasions throughout the Trump era, Thomas would show up in the White House, sometimes for a private meeting or a luncheon with the president. She often came armed with written memos of who she and her allies believed Trump should hire for plum jobs—and who she thought Trump should promptly purge—that she distributed to Trump and other high-ranking government officials.

The fire lists were particularly problematic, as they were frequently based on pure conjecture, rumor, or score-settling, where even steadfastly MAGA aides were targeted for being part of the “Deep State” or some other supposedly anti-Trump coalition, according to people who saw them during the Trump administration. The hire lists were so often filled with infamous bigots and conspiracy theorists, woefully under-qualified names, and obvious close friends of Thomas that several senior Trump aides would laugh at them—that is, until Trump would force his staff to put certain names through the official vetting process, three sources familiar with the matter said.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/insid...iring-memos-for-former-president-donald-trump

I'm sure things like this, or things like the text stream she had with Meadows, were ever discussed with her husband.

 

Why are the sources in the dailybeast article never named? We just have to trust the left's patented "people who saw", "sources who knew", "one former White House official" nonsense? Throughout Trump's entire administration this kind of phony reporting was used to smear him.

 

"At this point, it is implausible that Clarence Thomas has been unaware of his wife’s plotting. His failure to recuse himself in two cases related to the 2020 election and its aftermath strongly appears to violate a federal law requiring the justices to abstain from certain cases.

Saying he didn’t know what she was doing is no defense. Aside from not being credible, he had “a duty” to ask his wife about her involvement in Trump’s efforts to stay in office before he participated in election-related cases, Stephen Gillers, a law professor and judicial ethics scholar at New York University, told me.

“Both have crossed a line and deserve no benefit of the doubt,” Gillers said. He noted that the federal law says judges and justices must recuse in cases where a spouse has “an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome” — as Ginni Thomas did, having enlisted in Trump’s “Stop the Steal” campaign — and where their “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

The law requires a judge to do what is needed to maintain impartiality. Ignorance is no excuse, and this is a pattern we've seen before. Check out Jane Mayer's article in the New Yorker about Ginni for the details...

The dissembling by Republicans only adds to the damage done with Thomas undermining the Rule of Law...

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/sto...as-ginni-thomas-recuse-conflict-supreme-court

 

Democrats concerned about damage to the rule of law? You're joking, right? They never been concerned with the rule of law.

 

No, you're the one joking.

After Trump and Jan 6, your comment can be best described as hallucinatory.

 

I'll consider the source on that comment.

 

Just another partisan smear.