The Case For Impeaching Clarence Thomas

[Me.]

“I was so incredibly excited to meet him, rough confirmation hearings notwithstanding,” Smith continued. “He was charming in many ways — giant, booming laugh, charismatic, approachable. But to my complete shock, he groped me while I was setting the table, suggesting I should ‘sit right next to him.’ When I feebly explained I’d been assigned to the other table, he groped again … ‘Are you sure?’ I said I was and proceeded to keep my distance.” Smith had been silent for 17 years but, infuriated by the “Grab ’em by the pussy” utterings of a presidential candidate, could keep quiet no more.

Tipped to the post by a Maryland legal source who knew Smith, Marcia Coyle, a highly regarded and scrupulously nonideological Supreme Court reporter for The National Law Journal, wrote a detailed story about Smith’s allegation of butt-squeezing, which included corroboration from Smith’s roommates at the time of the dinner and from her former husband. Coyle’s story, which Thomas denied, was published October 27, 2016. If you missed it, that’s because this news was immediately buried by a much bigger story “…

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/02/the-case-for-impeaching-clarence-thomas.html

[Me.]

1. More

"But it’s well worth inspecting, in part as a case study, in how women’s voices were silenced at the time by both Republicans and Democrats and as an illustration of what’s changed — and hasn’t — in the past 27 years (or even the last year). After all, it’s difficult to imagine Democrats, not to mention the media, being so tentative about such claims against a nominated justice today. It’s also worth looking closely at, because, as Smith’s account and my reporting since indicates, Thomas’s inappropriate behavior — talking about porn in the office, commenting on the bodies of the women he worked with — was more wide-ranging than was apparent during the sensational Senate hearings, with their strange Coke-can details.

But, most of all, because Thomas, as a crucial vote on the Supreme Court, holds incredible power over women’s rights, workplace, reproductive, and otherwise. His worldview, with its consistent objectification of women, is the one that’s shaping the contours of what’s possible for women in America today, more than that of just about any man alive, save for his fellow justices.

And given the evidence that’s come out in the years since, it’s also time to raise the possibility of impeachment. Not because he watched porn on his own time, of course. Not because he talked about it with a female colleague — although our understanding of the real workplace harm that kind of sexual harassment does to women has evolved dramatically in the years since, thanks in no small part to those very hearings. Nor is it even because he routinely violated the norms of good workplace behavior, in a way that seemed especially at odds with the elevated office he was seeking. It’s because of the lies he told, repeatedly and under oath, saying he had never talked to Hill about porn or to other women who worked with him about risqué subject matter.

Lying is, for lawyers, a cardinal sin. State disciplinary committees regularly institute proceedings against lawyers for knowingly lying in court, with punishments that can include disbarment. Since 1989, three federal judges have been impeached and forced from office for charges that include lying. The idea of someone so flagrantly telling untruths to ascend to the highest legal position in the U.S. remains shocking, in addition to its being illegal. (Thomas, through a spokesperson, declined to comment on a detailed list of queries.)"

[sfwriter]

2. He should resign... eom

[Paladin]

3. It can't happen soon enough to suit me.

Thomas was unqualified, even back when he had Scalia's opinions to copy. Those hearings that put him on the court were an absolute travesty.

[Gothmog]

4. Thomas is a really bad justice

Link to tweet

[Me.]

6. So Harmful In So Many Ways

And then he was rewarded.

"Thomas’s lies not only undermined Hill but also isolated her. It was her word versus his — when it could have been her word, plus several other women’s, which would have made for a different media narrative and a different calculation for senators. As the present moment has taught us, women who come forward alongside other women are more likely to be believed (unfair as that might be). There were four women who wanted to testify, or would have if subpoenaed, to corroborate aspects of Hill’s story. My new reporting shows that there is at least one more who didn’t come forward. Their “Me Too” voices were silenced."

[gratuitous]

11. Rewarded with a life-time appointment

A life-time appointment that comes complete with near-total unaccountability. If a Supreme Court Justice appears to have a conflict of interest with a case coming before the Court, guess who decides whether the Justice should be recused for that case? That's right, the Justice himself or herself! "No, the several hundred thousand dollars I've received in speaking fees before various groups getting their butts sued off by aggrieved plaintiffs will have absolutely no bearing on my ruling in this frivolous case."

The only means of removal of a Supreme Court Justice is impeachment by the House and removal by the Senate. To date, one Justice, Samuel Chase, has been impeached, though the Senate acquitted him in 1804. Abe Fortas resigned from the Court in 1969 when it appeared the House might impeach him.

So, you know, obviously the system totally works.

[blm]

5. kicking

.

[Me.]

7. Thank You

[blm]

8. This is too important and needs more eyeballs.

Thankyou for posting it.

[Me.]

9. This Is Important

and once again it may slide away from ongoing conversations

[Initech]

10. And let Trump appoint an ultra far right religious extremist? No thanks!

Thomas is an asshole, but I do not want Trump appointing any extremists to the court with a White House full of hard right religious zealots. As bad as things are now, if Trump got another justice pick? It will be worse!

[Me.]

13. What's The Difference

He always votes with the RW of the court...plus...there's this

“Now, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, has recast herself yet again, this time as the head of a firm, Liberty Consulting, which boasts on its website using her “experience and connections” to help clients “with “governmental affairs efforts” and political donation strategies.

Thomas already has met with nearly half of the 99 GOP freshmen in the House and Senate, according to an e-mail she sent last week to congressional chiefs of staff, in which she branded herself “a self-appointed, ambassador to the freshmen class and an ambassador to the tea party movement.”

But her latest career incarnation is sparking controversy again.

Thomas’s role as a de facto tea party lobbyist and — until recently — as head of a tea party group that worked to defeat Democrats last November “show a new level of arrogance of just not caring that the court is being politicized and how that undermines the historic image of the Supreme Court as being above the political fray,” said Arn Pearson, a lawyer for Common Cause, the left-leaning government watchdog group.

“It raises additional questions about whether Justice Thomas can be unbiased and appear to be unbiased in cases dealing with the repeal of the health care reform law or corporate political spending when his wife is working to elect members of the tea party and also advocating for their policies.”

https://www.politico.com/story/2011/02/justice-thomass-wife-now-lobbyist-048812

[ProudLib72]

14. I kinda sorta agree

Would he actually step down? There is very little probability in that happening now. The only way to impeach him is to win congress back in November. If that happened, then we could pull a McConnell and say that tRump is under investigation and SCOTUS appointment can wait until after that is complete. If they can block Garland for nearly a year, we can block one of tRumps for just as long.

[clementine613]

12. Every conservative "justice" should be impeached and removed from office.

Thomas, Alito, Roberts and Gorsuch.

Every one of them needs to be removed from the bench. If we could get a majority of the House and 2/3 of the Senate (yes, I know that's a longshot, but I can dream, can't I?), we could remove them all in one fell swoop.