Rachel Maddow Discusses Clarence Thomas - ProtectOurElections.org

[ThirdChoice]

Run time: 08:48 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc5-GV2Nols   Posted on YouTube: June 21, 2011 By YouTube Member: VRAdmin Views on YouTube: 1   Posted on DU: June 21, 2011 By DU Member: ThirdChoice Views on DU: 1854

 
www.ProtectOurElections.org

[KansDem]

1. Conservatives have been quite successful at blurring the distinction between right and wrong.

Take torture for example. What is clearly torture became a semantic football. They never denied the practice existed but merely tossed doubt out into American minds as to whether or not it was really "torture."

Remember "enhanced interrogation?" Remember "frat pranks?"

When they were done, many folks were left with the doubt that Americans really tortured.

The same with this case. Sure, they'll say, Thomas accepted gifts, but is that really bribery? And did these gifts really influence Thomas's decisions?

Before they're through, they'll have Americans believing Thomas merely accepted a few trinkets from a grateful citizen.

[leveymg]

2. That was a good overview of Clarence's ethics problems, but Rachel neglected to mention the criminal

law violation that occurred when Thomas stopped revealing his wife's income on his annual federal financial disclosure forms. That was a criminal act, a direct violation of 5 USC App. 104, False Statement, as the form states right below the signature line on papers he falsified at least five years in a row.

I wonder why this key fact is being held back? Few in Washington would seem to have the stomach to criminally prosecute Clarence Thomas.

[2banon]

3. I'm just guessing..

that she have been asked to hold off until the case is better prepared.. I'm just guessing. Because I think RM would have certainly included it and underscored it for all that it's worth.

Could also be a whistleblower, or important witness or some other critical evidence is being vetted etc..

just guessing.. but I'm quite anxious about this matter, and really hope significant action will be taken post haste..

[WhoIsNumberNone]

4. The documents Rachel refers to were posted on POE some time ago-

Some veeery interesting stuff...
http://protectourelections.org/index.php?q=docs

[Prana69]

5. OMG!! Why isn't the press all over this scandal?

...Oh right, not interesting unless we get some tweets of the Justice in his jockeys.

p69

[rasputin1952]

6. Here is the truth of the matter...

Thomas is apparently a crook, but, as long as there is a GOP led House, he will not be impeached unless the public outcry reaches a the point of torches and pitchforks outside of the USSC.

Now, if the House goes D in 2012, Thomas may well be impeached, (rare at best for a sitting USSC judge); but the distinct possibility exists.

Thomas has always shown himself to be a sleazebag, from pre-Anita Hill on, (I would venture to say he has the IQ of a cumquat as well). I've read some of his writings, and to be honest, they should have been written in crayon.

There was a time when even flawed Justices had some saving graces, not so w/Thomas, he's a crook, has always been a crook and should be impeached, tried, tossed out of the USSC and then prosecuted and if convicted, tossed into prison...and his wife can go with him.

[leveymg]

7. If Thomas is indicted on a federal criminal charge, he will have to go

I can not see the others tolerating his continued presence on the bench. It calls the legitimacy of SCOTUS into question. There are institutional and personal reputation interests at stake that are bigger than Clarence Thomas.

Besides, he could be sent to Club Fed for at least five years on these charges. Is he going to hear cases from Prison?

[rasputin1952]

8. He has to be impeached, convictd and removed from the SCOTUS

before he can be charged with a crime that would place him a possible prison situation. He can't be frog marched pout of the Senate and report to prison. The processes involved are a little complex. First, he must be removed from office, than, criminal charges can be brought against him, where he could face time.

He is most likely the least qualified USSC of all time...the man is a an idiot and would be better at sweeping up after horses after a parade.

[leveymg]

10. Absolutely wrong. There have been plenty of federal Judges indicted, arrested, tried and convicted

Supreme Court justices are treated precisely the same way as other federal judges. They go through the criminal justice system, just like everyone else when they've committed serious crimes. Qualified immunity only extends to official acts. Falsifying income statements is a crime, 5 USC App. 104, punishable by a year in federal prison for each offense. Clarence committed at least five counts.

Federal Judges get arrested and indicted. One was even charged with murder in the 19th Century. There's no prerequisite of Impeachment prior to prosecution. I'll save you the effort of GOOGLE:

#
Federal Judge Indicted in Sex Abuse Case - ABC News
Aug 29, 2008 ... A federal judge in Texas stands accused of sexually abusing one of his staff members, according to charges filed Thursday.
http://abcnews.go.com › Cuomo on the Case - Similar
►
#
#
Federal Judge Samuel Kent Indicted for Sex Crimes « JONATHAN TURLEY
Aug 29, 2008 ... On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Samuel Kent became the first federal judge in history to be indicted for sex crimes, specifically abusive ...
jonathanturley.org/.../federal-judge-samuel-kent-indicted-for-sex-crimes/ - Cached - Similar
#
News for Indictment of federal judge
#
Judge won't dismiss Minnesota women's terror case
17 hours ago
MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — A federal judge won't dismiss the indictment against two Minnesota women accused of funneling money to the terror group al-Shabab in ...
The Associated Press - 123 related articles

Federal Judges and elected officials just can't be officially removed from office until they are Impeached. As a practical matter, once they're indicted or otherwise arrested on a serious criminal charge, they're through.

[rasputin1952]

11. I am half right...

Can a US Supreme Court justice be impeached and removed from office?

Answer:
Yes.

Under normal circumstances, a Supreme Court justice is awarded a lifetime commission.

A Supreme Court Justice may be impeached by the House of Representatives and removed from office if convicted in a Senate trial, but only for the same types of offenses that would trigger impeachment proceedings for any other government official under Articles I and II of the Constitution.

Article III, Section 1 states that judges of Article III courts shall hold their offices "during good behavior." "The phrase "good behavior" has been interpreted by the courts to equate to the same level of seriousness 'high crimes and misdemeanors" encompasses.

On the other hand:

In addition, any federal judge may prosecuted in the criminal courts for criminal activity. If found guilty of a crime in a federal district court, the justice would face the same type of sentencing any other criminal defendant would. The district court could not remove him/her from the Bench. However, any justice found guilty in the criminal courts of any felony would certainly be impeached and, if found guilty, removed from office.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_a_US_Supreme_Court_justice_be_impeached_and_removed_from_office


Bottom line though, Impeachment is simply what the House decides to impeach upon, if anything. It's more political than anything else.

[leveymg]

12. Indicting Clarence Thomas would effectively remove Clarence Thomas from the bench

He won't be able to hear cases from federal prison for at least five years, even if the House doesn't impeach him during that time.

What the Republican-controlled House does or doesn't do is almost irrelevant to that outcome.

[Overseas]

9. K&R.