Want to Get Rid of Clarence Thomas?

[MineralMan]

Here's how:

Step 1: Elect an absolutely unstoppable Democratic majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

There is no step 2.

Failing the success of Step 1, it's a wild goose chase. The Attorney General will not impanel a Grand Jury to indict Thomas, because there is no court in which to try him. Supreme Court Justices may only be removed from office or punished by impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate. The AG's office has no authority in the matter.

Since the House is currently controlled by a strong Republican majority, there is absolutely zero chance of an impeachment. Case closed.

We're wasting out time on this issue, to be quite frank. We're wasting our time on many issues, when the only issue that really matters in the next year or so is the 2012 elections. Unless we can retake control of the Congress, none of the other stuff is going to happen. None of it. And, while we're at it, we need to retake control of those state legislatures that were lost in 2010.

Yes, there are many things that should be corrected. But each and every one of them depends on legislation. Without legislation that supports our goals, we will lose each and every important battle. And the only way we're going to get supporting legislation is to elect legislators who will vote for those things and support them.


It could not be more simple. We have a choice. We can focus our attention on the real battle facing us in 2012, or we can fritter away our time tilting at windmills. Expecting the current Congress to enact anything is simply foolish, so we must replace it with a Congress that will carry out our wishes. The longer we wait to take on that single thing, the less chance we have to succeed.

If you think I'm incorrect in this, please tell me how. Tell me what your plan is to implement whatever things you wish to see implemented - without electing a strong Democratic majority to both houses of Congress. I cannot see any other way.

[libodem]

1. YES!

[MineralMan]

3. Thanks!

We need to focus on the real prize here, not on the unattainable things we cannot have without it. One job, and one job only. We can do it, if we really want it. But it's not going to be easy and it's going to require all of us to accomplish it.

[leveymg]

21. NO NEED TO IMPEACH. Clarence may be indicted and arrested, just like you or I can be.

"The Impeachment is impossible" argument is a red herring. Supreme Court Justices may be indicted - they do not have Immunity from criminal indictment and arrest for matters outside "Judicial acts". Reporting income is not a "judicial act", and the courts have held that judges may be liable for wrongful administrative acts. That has been the state of the law since Bradley v Fisher (1871). More recently, see, Pierson v Ray (1967). Look it up.

Indict Clarence Thomas.

Judges have given themselves judicial immunity for their judicial functions. Judges have no judicial immunity for criminal acts, aiding, assisting, or conniving with others who perform a criminal act, or for their administrative/ministerial duties. When a judge has a duty to act, he does not have discretion - he is then not performing a judicial act, he is performing a ministerial act.

Judicial immunity does not exist for judges who engage in criminal activity.

[LiberalFighter]

27. Very Good!!! +infinity

[leveymg]

28. MM- Your post is disinformation. Federal Judges may be arrested and convicted.

Here's a Chief Federal Judge in GA - sex and drugs crimes: http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/federal-judge-charged-with-658597.html

Atlanta News 6:30 a.m. Tuesday, October 5, 2010

Federal judge charged with buying drugs from stripper

By Steve Visser and Bill Torpy

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

A longtime federal judge was freed on a $50,000 bond Monday after his arrest on federal charges that he bought cocaine and other illegal drugs while involved in a sexual relationship with an exotic dancer for the past several months.

[MineralMan]

41. In theory, you may be right. Don't hold your breath waiting for

an Attorney General to do that to a SCOTUS justice, though. It ain't happening.

[leveymg]

48. Thomas' filings are prima facie evidence he committed a criminal offense - any federal officer could

effect Clarence Thomas' arrest without an arrest warrant or indictment. Thomas would then have to face arraignment.

The more likely possibility is that the Judicial Conference of the United States "indicts" Clarence Thomas, and the case goes to the House for trial. That would set up the sort of political crisis you referred to.

Is that likely to happen? No. Could it - perhaps, if Clarence refuses to resign.

The general rule is that federal officers may effect an arrest without a warrant where there is a reasonable basis to believe that doing so will detect or prevent the commission of any federal crime.

In addition to the FBI, which has general arrest powers, there are many federal agencies whose law enforcement agents have arrest power pursuant to their own enabling legislation. Any of these federal officers can arrest you if they have reasonable cause to conclude that you have violated any federal criminal statute, of which 5 USC App. 104 is one. An explanation of the federal power to arrest without a warrant is contained the following: http://www.irs.gov/irm/part9/irm_09-001-002.html

For information concerning Authority to Arrest, see IRM 9.1.2.4:

9.1.2.4 (01-16-2008)
Authority to Arrest

1.

The authority of special agents to make arrests is provided by 26 USC §7608. This section provides, in part, that a special agent is authorized: to execute and serve search warrants and arrest warrants; to serve subpoenas and summonses issued under authority of the United States; to make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States relating to the Internal Revenue laws that is committed in his/her presence, or for any felony cognizable under such laws if he/she has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing any such felony; and to make seizures of property subject to forfeiture under the Internal Revenue laws.
2.

The Supreme Court has stated that, in the absence of a controlling Federal statute, the law of arrest of the state where the arrest is made is controlling. In the absence of a statute authorizing a federal officer to make an arrest without a warrant, that officer has the same powers of arrest as a private citizen. A special agent’s power to make an arrest without a warrant as a private citizen, when valid under state law, is not made invalid because the crime is outside the scope of the Internal Revenue laws. An arrest without a warrant is a serious matter and could subject the person making the arrest to criminal and civil liability for false imprisonment or false arrest. Therefore, in order for a special agent to be authorized to make a warrantless arrest (as a private citizen), it is generally necessary that a violation constituting a felony be committed in his/her presence or he/she must reasonably believe that the person whom he/she arrests has committed a felony.
3.

Every state has its own requirements in granting Federal law enforcement officers state peace officer status. Even if peace officer status is recognized by your state, check with counsel before taking any position as a recognized peace officer.

[pa28]

77. Thanks for setting the record straight.

Thomas and his possible crimes are matters for the legal system first and the political system second. If Thomas were indicted and convicted the political picture would look very different from what the OP presented.

[Poll_Blind]

2. Ahem, given their performance from 2007-2010, just how many is "absolutely unstoppable"?

:shrug:

Because it's articles like this which make me think we need 200 Democratic senators and about 900 Democratic house reps before we can start getting enough votes to actually do anything.

PB

[MineralMan]

4. I cannot answer that question. Obviously we need more than

we had. So, there you are. The goal is still the same. The one thing of which I'm certain is that we will not get any of the things that are so important if we do not do that first thing. The goal is simple. Will you help?

[Poll_Blind]

5. Sure, my senator (Wyden) and rep (DeFazio) are _actual_ Progressives.

It's going to be a tougher sell for people with DINOs standing in for real Democrats.

PB

[MineralMan]

6. As are my Senators and my Representative.

There is still no alternative. Without those majorities, we get nothing. So, perhaps we could work our asses off to get them. Seems like a decent plan to me.

[sabrina 1]

15. Yes, perhaps the OP doesn't remember the same exact promises

being made before the 2006 and 2008 elections. Not going to be fooled again. They did keep moving the goalposts, airc. First 'if we get the House'. Then 'We need the House, the Senate and the WH'. Immediately after that there were more excuses I won't bother to list, because I and most others never believed them anyhow.

How naive we were back then! I remember the day of the inauguration, how excited we were to think that finally we would get to work on restoring the rule of law, investigating war crimes etc.

No longer that naive. When you lose trust the way they have, you have to EARN it back.

[MineralMan]

16. The OP remembers many things.

And I'll remember many things in the future.

[sendero]

32. I don't think they'd.

... do it if they had a 90% majority.

[Ohio Joe]

7. You are correct

While I think it worthy to keep a light shined on Thomas, nothing will come of it unless we have clear hold of both the house and the senate.

[Dreamer Tatum]

8. "Absolutely unstoppable"

We have checks and balances for precisely that possibility.

[MineralMan]

10. You know exactly what I mean by that.

I'm quite sure you do.

[Dreamer Tatum]

14. I do, but there is what whole unintended consequences thing. nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

34. That's OK, WE know what you mean too. nt

[MineralMan]

65. That's good. I try to be very clear in what I write.

I'm glad to hear that I've succeeded.

[MineralMan]

66. That's good. I try to be very clear in what I write.

I'm glad to hear that I've succeeded.

[sabrina 1]

9. Sorry, I remember this same advice before the 2006 and 2008

elections, but then we were told AFTER we worked so hard to make it happen, that war crimes and corruption were not going to be dealt with because 'we have better things to focus on and we are going look forward'.

I will focus on getting this judge before a hearing right now if you don't mind. Why is it so important to people here on DU to discourage people from doing what Rep. Weiner was targeted by the right for doing?

Justice Thomas falsified 20 years of judicial financial disclosure forms by denying that his wife had income sources; second, he engaged in judicial corruption by receiving $100,000 in support from Citizens United during his nomination and then ruling in favor of Citizens United in 2010 without disclosing that fact or disqualifying himself; and third, he apparently conspired with his wife in a form of "judicial insider trading" by providing her with information about the result of the Court's decision in Citizens United prior to its issuance, which she then used to launch a new company to take financial advantage of that decision to benefit her and her husband.

These are crimes. He is on the SC a far more powerful position than that of a member of Congress. If you can't tolerate a sex lie, I don't see how you can tolerate these lies, lies that were told for 20 years.

This is a hugely important issue. This man gets to decide the fate of this country and he should not be allowed to make one more decision that we will have to live with, until there are at least hearings to determine whether or not he ought to be indicted.

[MineralMan]

13. To what end? A hearing in the current House?

That's not going to happen. You're absolutely right that he should be removed from his seat, and the only way for that to happen is through an impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate. Everything else is worthless, and that impeachment simply will not happen in the current Congress.

It's a waste of time. Elect a 250 seat majority in the House, and it will become something that can happen. Right now, it's just quixotic.

[sabrina 1]

17. The House? These are crimes. We have a DOJ don't we?

I'm surprised at your patience with keeping him on the court, making decisions considering your complete intolerance for a sex lie of a far less powerful member of Congress.

So, if you don't mind, I will work along with those who are already working on taking care of this problem as quickly as possible. There are several very influential organizations already dealing with this. And I think Rep. Weiner for his diligent work in getting it out in the open. He has suffered greatly for doing his job as a member of Congress, targeted as he was since he wrote that letter in Feb. by the goons on the far right. But he did move the issue forward and now it's up to us, as citizens, to keep working on it.

[MineralMan]

19. You truly do not understand the process, it seems to me.

An indictment does not remove a SCOTUS justice. Only one thing can do that, and that is impeachment and conviction. Weiner is a separate issue.

I will guarantee you that no Attorney General of the United States is going to seek an indictment against a sitting SCOTUS justice. It will not happen. Such an unprecedented action would throw the entire system into complete disruption and would end with Thomas still sitting on the bench. So, it will not happen. Take Thomas and his crimes to the voters and show them how to get rid of him. You're just not getting this.

[sabrina 1]

36. I will defer to those who are already working on this issue and who

have a lot more knowledge about these matters than I do. I know very well how the process works, but this man appears to have committed serious crimes and being a SC justice does not give him a pass on that.

Given that it is still possible that if Democrats had some spine and insisted on raising the issue at every opportunity, as Weiner did, in Congress and in the media, even Republicans who no one doubts do not believe the rule of law applies to them, can be embarrassed into at least responding to hearings the Dems can and are in fact obligated by their oaths of office to demand.

We'll see, I will support any effort to start as soon as possible looking into these allegations and I know most progressives I know are simply infuriated that this man has been lying for 20 years and influenced by money regarding the decisions he has made.

I cannot comprehend any citizen of this country not being outraged, if these allegations are true. What it means is that we have a totally corrupted system and no longer can rely on those in charge to run this country effectively.

Quite frankly having read the allegations, I am truly shocked at the time given to the relatively minor issue of a sex lie by our completely compromised media and to be perfectly honest, which I prefer to be, that someone like you who I believe to be a decent person who cares about this country, is more outraged over the sex lie than this.

I wish someone could explain it to me because this also seems to be the attitude of the Democratic Party and no, it will not change even if they hold a super majority unless we get over 200 new members like Weiner and Kucinich who actually do care about these matters. And that is not going to happen, so your hope that a majority will accomplish this, is doomed to disappointment, we've already been there.

[MineralMan]

39. I'm neither outraged by Weiner nor complacent about Thomas.

I'm disappointed in Weiner, who will decide for himself what he will do. I can do nothing about Clarence Thomas, despite my disgust for the man on several levels. I expected much from Weiner, and he delivered a turd. I expected nothing from Thomas, and he has fulfilled all my expectations.

Now, I'm moving on the the next things on my agenda. As I said, I would welcome Weiner's resignation, but am not calling for it. I'd welcome Thomas's resignation as well, but do not expect it or any action taken to remove him from the bench. My role in both is none at all.

[sabrina 1]

76. We disagree, we can do something.

Weiner should not resign, but he should leave the party imho. He will be reelected if he chooses to run. Clearly the party he belongs to are too spineless to stand up to Republican political operatives on everyone's behalf, not just his, and they will now move on the their next target. He would do very well in NY where people are definitely far more concerned about a SC Justice remaining on the bench who may have broken the law and who most certainly has a huge conflict of interest, than someone personal sex life. There is simply no comparison between the two.

Good luck in your endeavors.

[RaleighNCDUer]

38. So being selected to the SC is a pass to commit any criminal act you want?

If a justice got pissed at an arguing lawyer and shot him, he couldn't be prosecuted? No AG would be moved to idict if a justice was caught fucking a 10 year old boy?

How would enforcing the law throw the entire system into complete disruption?

[Jackpine Radical]

45. So, what's the limit?

To quote from another thread,

"Justice Thomas falsified 20 years of judicial financial disclosure forms by denying that his wife had income sources; second, he engaged in judicial corruption by receiving $100,000 in support from Citizens United during his nomination and then ruling in favor of Citizens United in 2010 without disclosing that fact or disqualifying himself; and third, he apparently conspired with his wife in a form of "judicial insider trading" by providing her with information about the result of the Court's decision in Citizens United prior to its issuance, which she then used to launch a new company to take financial advantage of that decision to benefit her and her husband."

What if he murdered a government agent (thereby making it a Federal offense) in front of 500 witnesses and a TV camera?

In your opinion, is there any conceivable crime for which the DOJ might/should indict him?

[MineralMan]

50. Yes, of course there is, but those disclosure forms don't rise

to that level, I'm afraid. See if I'm not correct. I'm dealing with the realities, not the theory, here. The reality is that no indictment will be handed down. No arrest will be made. I wish it were otherwise, but that's what's going to happen (or not happen, actually).

[Jackpine Radical]

56. I have no doubt you're right in your prediction

that nothing will happen.

And I reserve my right to be quite dismayed by that fact. And it isn't only about the disclosure forms.

[MineralMan]

57. Dismay is an appropriate response, especially if followed

by some action. I'm dismayed, too. I was dismayed when Thomas was confirmed.

[Jackpine Radical]

70. That too.

Not to mention Scalia, Alito, Roberts…

[Snoutport]

11. I agree BUT....

We still have to discuss WHY it is so important to elect a Democratic Majority in the house. We must fire up the base and that means:

you fire up the people who care most about the supreme court
you fire up the unions backers who care most about labor issues
you fire up the people who don't want an idiot snowbunny for president

you fire up the people by discussing a wide variety of issues that appeal to different parts of the voter base. So, many of these conversations you say are a wild goose chase are actually the inspiration needed to get the voters out to vote.

:0) But, I still agree with you 100% about the elections.

[MineralMan]

18. Of course. We take all of those issues to the voters.

But, unless we commit to actually doing that, one precinct at a time, it doesn't get done. Truly, we are going to be fighting a door-to-door battle here. We cannot count on the media. It's going to take a full-out effort by individual activists who will take the message directly to the voters. Without that, we will not succeed.

[JDPriestly]

29. But then how can we know what these deadbeat Democrats will

actually do when they get in power? These are the guys who stupidly vote to extend tax cuts for the rich and the Patriot Act and who refused to even investigate Bush's wars adequately -- and have continued to fund them long after the fraud that got us into them was revealed.

How do we get them to do the right thing when they have the majority? If they can't do the right things when they are in the majority, what difference does it make?

Suggesting that Thomas could be impeached is great, but if I vote for someone on the understanding they will fight to get Thomas out and then all they do is vote for tax cuts for the rich, why bother?

I'm asking this on behalf of all kinds of people who are not on DU, who are not activists and who don't even go to this concept but who just feel that voting for do-nothings is futile.

[MineralMan]

42. We can never know what any individual will do.

We can work hard to elect those who say they will do what we wish, though. Or, we can let others elect people. That's the choice, really. You're either working on the side of progressivism or you're allowing the other side to prevail. Of course, you can just vote your single vote. That's a good thing, but it's going to take more than that to prevail in 2012, and for a lot of reasons.

[EFerrari]

12. Electing Democrats without building public support for the issue

will not get it done. It never does and especially in a situation like this which requires DC insiders to violate their omerta.

Activism on this issue is not a "waste of time" or "tilting at windmills". It's essential in the instance AND it builds the habit of engagement.

[MineralMan]

20. Using these issues to influence voters is the answer.

Especially when it comes to things like SCOTUS justices, who cannot be removed except by Congress. Take the issue to the voters and convince them of what they need to do. You will not shame Clarence Thomas into resigning. He is beyond shame, as he has demonstrated many times in the past. And unless he resigns or is impeached and convicted, he stays on the bench. So, absolutely, take the issue to the voters. They're the ones who can make the difference.

Don't expect the AG to indict a sitting SCOTUS Justice. That is not going to happen, no matter what is discovered. Reality sucks, but we have recourse to the voters. That is our power. That is our sole power in situations such as this one.

[EFerrari]

22. Reality is that elections alone never changed anything very much.

Public support for an issue does. That's how our government has been forced into moving on any number of crucial issues. I'm astonished that anyone on this board can possibly believe that handing an elective office to a politician will result in justice or social welfare.

[MineralMan]

24. Elections have changed things many times.

Perhaps you're too young to remember...

[EFerrari]

33. I'm old enough to remember how Nixon's thugs regrouped

and became IranContra, same people who ran Bush the Lesser's administration and who are even now in positions of power in the Obama administration. I'm exactly old enough to trace that through line.

[JDPriestly]

23. We did that, and the Democrats protected GWBush. It doesn't make

any difference. They are all members of the same club, and they refuse to rock the vote. As long as we have some of these folks like Nancy Pelosi and other yellow-bellies leading Congress, there will be no improvements.

[MineralMan]

25. I guess I can count you out, then for this effort.

Good to know.

[JDPriestly]

75. It isn't that you can count me out. It's that I think that we have to

approach this independently.

I will write my congressman about it. He is a strong liberal. I saw him this morning and spoke to him and am sorry I did not think to say anything about this.

But electing a majority of people with D's after their names does not change anything unless you elect conscientious people with D's after their name, incorruptible types with D's after their names, and we haven't figured out how to do that yet.

[tekisui]

26. That's cute. The Dems would never do it, even with strong majorities.

We've all seen that movie. 2006-2010. Nada.

[MineralMan]

31. I guess I won't count on your help the, either.

Good to know.

[tekisui]

37. I still vote for them. They are still better than repukes.

But I hold no delusion that they would ever have the spine or interest in actual justice. It is naive to think strong majorities would help at all on this issue.

[MineralMan]

40. Great. That's one vote. I guess I'm sort of calling on people to

do more than just show up and vote. That's what I meant.

[tekisui]

44. I have done much more in the past, but haven't seen enough return

on my efforts to do anymore than vote. They simply aren't worth it.

[MineralMan]

47. As I said. I won't count on your help.

That's OK. But, do please show up and vote. Thanks.

[RaleighNCDUer]

30. Wrong.

He, like any other defendent, would go through the regular court system. If convicted, he could repeatedly appeal all the way up to the SC, at which level they would ALL have to recuse themselves for their personal relationship with him, at which point the last ruling at the Federal Court Of Appeals would stand.

NOBODY is above the law.

[MineralMan]

35. Show me a time when that happened, then.

Show me a single SCOTUS justice who has been indicted and tried for anything. Seriously. Your saying that it could happen does not mean that it could. I say that it could not, because no Attorney General would ever be willing to test this.

[leveymg]

43. Show me a single Justice who has been as stupid as Clarence Thomas.

There are two ways that a federal Judge can be indicted and face trial. He can be arrested by a police officer on a criminal charge, booked, taken before a Judge for Arraignment. That's the way that the Senior Judge in Atlanta was handled last year on cocaine charges. See my post above.

The second way into the criminal justice system is by Indictment by the Judicial Conference of the United States, which hands down a "request" that the Judge face trial by the House of Reps.

In 1980, the Judicial Council Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act was passed into law, which empowered the Judicial Conference of the United States to investigate and police the judiciary and, if need be, request that the House of Representatives impeach federal judges. Most judicial impeachments since then have been based on these requests.

[RaleighNCDUer]

49. Back at you - show a SCOTUS that was accused, without indictment,

of clear violations of the law - not like Fat Tony and his conflicts of interest, but actual, provable fraud or criminal activity. Are you so cynical that you think EVERYONE in high office is a criminal, and the only reason they aren't charged is because we CHOOSE not to pursue it?

I suggest, OTOH, that by the time a judge reaches that level he's generally smart enough to know that he CANNOT commit criminal acts, and therefore there have been no criminal indictments because they committed no crimes.

Until now.

Don't get me wrong - this is not because I despise Thomas. I also heartily despise Scalia and Roberts, and am not happy about a couple others, but THEY have not committed a federal crime by lying on official tax documents (BTW, if he declared no spousal income, does that mean he cheated on those taxes as well?). This is head and shoulders above the ethical lapses of Fat Tony.

If you think this is not prosecutable, try on YOUR tax forms next year.

[MineralMan]

51. Again, I'm dealing with reality, not theory.

The information is available. I say it will not be acted on, due to the position of a SCOTUS justice in the hierarchy of our system of government. In theory, you may be right, but in practice, no charges will be filed against Thomas. Yes, that is a political decision, but it's one I can comfortably be sure will not be made.

Politically, it would be disastrous, so it will not happen.

It may already have been thoroughly discussed at the White House. In fact, I suspect it has, and the decision already made. And yes, for political reasons.

[RaleighNCDUer]

55. What information is available? Do YOU have information on

crimes committed by SC justices? Has there been in our lifetimes (or even before) a justice ACCUSED of taking bribes, or cheating on his taxes, for which there is clear evidence who was NOT indicted?

Saying it has never happened is not the same as saying it will never happen. Comparing the move to impeach Warren, who was NOT accused of any crime, to a need to indict Thomas for specific crimes is just apples & oranges.

You refuse to answer the direct question - if there is clear evidence of a crime committed by a SC justice, should he be indicted for that crime? If that crime is rape? If that crime is murder? If that crime is taking bribes? If that crime is tax fraud?

Where do YOU draw the line? Or, do you belive that no criminal act committed by a sitting justice of our highest court is indictable?

ON EDIT: IMO, the crimes Thomas committed have moved this beyong the 'theoretical'. Now, we have to deal with it.

[MineralMan]

58. As I said, I'm dealing with realities here.

The crime Clarence Thomas is accused of committing is not one of the heinous crimes you mentioned. It is a criminal act that probably doesn't rise to the level that would warrant a constitutional crisis. So, I'm saying that no indictment will appear. That's the reality. The rest is just speculation, and I'm not big on speculation.

You can theorize all you like, though. That will not change my opinion of what will or will not happen, nor of the importance of the 2012 elections. There will be no indictment on these charges against Thomas. There will be no impeachment or even any congressional hearings. There will, however, be an election.

[RaleighNCDUer]

64. What he is accused of is a felony, punishable by 1 year in prison

and a $50,000 fine for each count - that's 5 or 6 counts.

What felonies are OK, and what felonies are not?

Obviously, you believe THIS felony to be good. What OTHER felonies should he be able to get away with?

[MineralMan]

68. No, I do not believe that this felony is good.

What gives you that idea? I believe that no indictment will be handed down.

Please read what I write, not what you believe I think. I'm pretty precise in writing what I think.

[RaleighNCDUer]

71. Then why contend that this felony cannot be prosecuted.

And, of course, CANNOT be prosecuted is quite different from WILL NOT be prosecuted.

No, you are claiming a reality which is only your guess.

Reality is, we have not had a justice accused of felonies before, so this is undiscovered country. Saying it cannot happen (or will not happen becuause it never happened before) is falacious because we have never had these particular circumstances before.

Saying 'the only way to remove a justice is through impeachment' is falacious, as he could, and would, be removed if indicted and convicted of a federal crime.

Now, whether THIS AG and DOJ have any interest is pursuing it is a different matter. But in that case they need to answer as to why they won't.

Personally, I believe no indictment will be handed down, but only because we have a badly compromised presidency which is so beholden to the same interests that control the wrong half of SC that this DOJ will never get the OK to do it. That is not the same as saying that it is impossible because of the way the government is structured.

The problem is, as always, the conservadems refusing to take the lawful, progressive path, and letting the other side frame the debate. Instead of confronting them, they go golfing with them.

[MineralMan]

53. Here's the deal. Clarence Thomas should never have been

confirmed. He was, though. He won't leave, except by his own decision. And he won't be thrown off the bench. The error was made when he was confirmed. It will be corrected when he no longer sits on the SCOTUS. He's an embarrassment.

[leveymg]

59. Arrest him and take him off the street. Indict Clarence Thomas.

[MineralMan]

67. Do you have that authority? If so, then go for it.

If not, then I'm betting it won't happen. The election in November, 2012 will happen, though. I'm sure of that. That's the focus of this OP, you know.

[leveymg]

69. I'm not a federal officer - Clarence Thomas violated a federal criminal statute.

My power of arrest as a private citizen doesn't extend to enforcement of 5 USC App. 104(a)(1). But, there are plenty of federal officers in the area where Clarence Thomas works and lives who could and should arrest and take him before a federal magistrate.

[PufPuf23]

46. Mis-Info in that Judge Thomas committed crimes and can and should be indicted

and prosecuted; then the Congress would have no choice but to impeach and convict for removal.

The DOJ is a joke.

Electing strong Democratic majorities is great idea.

The OP mixes two totally different questions.

1. If Thomas commits a crime, can he be indicted? Yes.

2. Can Thomas be removed politically without strong Democratic majorities in Congress and control of the DOJ?

Unlikely, unless Thomas is convicted of felonies in Federal criminal court and goes through the appeals process.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

52. Maybe next time we should elect a Constitutional Law professor to The Presidency.

[MineralMan]

54. Very funny. As it turns out, constitutional law is

an important issue in this whole thing. And constitutional law is probably the most obscure branch of the law, for many reasons. It is President Obama's knowledge of constitutional law that will almost certainly keep him from creating a constitutional crisis over Clarence Thomas. And, make no mistake, there would be such a crisis, and it would cripple the President's ability to get anything at all done.

None of this will be resolved until November 2012, which is the whole point of my OP. What happens then will determine so much of where the USA goes. I don't think many people recognize just how important that election is going to be. That's why I keep writing theses OPs about the 2012 election. I'm an old man, really. This may well be the last major election I'll be actively involved in. At some point, I will stop and let things just happen. But, not in 2012. Not this time. What we do next year is going to set the course for a long, long time. It will affect those younger than me a lot more than it will me. I leave the world without offspring, by intention. But not without hope.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

61. If you think it's Obama's knowledge of constitutional law holding him back then...

... no offense, but: :rofl:


I have news for you. We already HAVE a constitutional crisis in this country. In fact, we have several of them. They're born from failure to enforce laws. They're born from failure to enforce The Constitution. They're born from having two sets of rules - one for the elite and one for the rest of us.


Enforcing the law as it pertains to Justice Thomas wouldn't CREATE the crisis. His failure to resign upon conviction would create the crisis. The House's failure to impeach upon conviction would create the crisis.

Indict the fucker and let him explain HOW and WHY he failed to disclose $800k in income. Who knows? Maybe he has a valid excuse or reason. I would like to at least hear it.

[MineralMan]

63. As you say. How does that alter my insistence that the 2012

election is where this has to change? You're welcome to indict Clarence Thomas, if you have the authority to do so. I don't believe you do, so you are going to do nothing in that regard. Others will decide that question. You do, however, have the ability to influence who is elected where you are. In fact, you'd be amazed at how much ability you have. Use it. That's my suggestion, and was the suggestion in the OP. If you believe that an indictment will be presented with regard to Clarence Thomas, then I believe you are very much mistaken. I'm 100% certain, though, that there will be elections in November, 2012. I think I'll focus on the sure thing.

[leveymg]

72. We have about as much power to decide the outcome of the 2012 election as we do to

personally arrest, indict, try, convict and make Clarence Thomas eat prison food. Your point is that we are helpless to do anything at all about Thomas but to hop on the bandwagon to re-elect the President. Your message is, basically, we are helpless, and that we should act that way, except to give time and money to the same elected officials who refuse to do anything about Clarence Thomas' violation of criminal law.

We agree about the need to work to reelect good Democrats, but that is a separate issue.

Our point is that Thomas must be indicted, and that the Weiner scandal is an effort to punish the Congressman for bringing facts about Thomas' lawbreaking to the public's attention, when the party leaders don't seem to want to bother trying to remove him.

Our call, "Indict Clarence Thomas" is exhortation to the President, the US Attorney General, Congress, the Judicial Conference of the United States, etc. to take steps to remove Clarence Thomas, who has clearly committed multiple federal offenses by filing false sworn statements numerous times over the course of five or six years. We are saying: "take steps to remove Clarence from the bench", and the rest will follow from there. Thomas will not be able to serve as Associate Justice anymore if the Judicial Conference "indicts" him for committing multiple criminal offenses. In the end, it really doesn't matter what the House does - Thomas will be through when the American people learn about his perjury and conflict of interest. He's a goner.

We are exercising our right to raise hell about this -- in polite terms, petitioning for redress. Shame on you for trying to tell us that we should be quiet and are helpless.

I just wish that Weiner, himself, would simply come out and say this. Lead by leading rather than by forced apologies.

[MineralMan]

74. I did not even mention the President. It's odd that you think I did.

I'm talking about legislative races, not the Presidency. Apparently you did not read my post.

[NorthCarolina]

60. The problem arises that not ALL Dems are "Dems",

some are DLC New Dems, and of course there's also the infamous Blue Dogs. It's not very likely that they would agree with your sentiments regarding the ouster of a Conservative Member of the Supreme Court.

[MineralMan]

62. A distinction without any meaning.

There are only individual Congress members and Senators. Each is elected by a small part of the country, either a state or a congressional district. It is in each of those districts and states where the decisions are made. I can influence the elections in my district and state, and have done so in the past and will do so in the future. I can do much less outside of my district and state. You live somewhere. You have to deal with the election in your own district and state. I can't really be of much help. I have no funds - just time. So, I use that time where it will have the biggest impact. I hope that others will do the same, so I encourage local political activism on the precinct, district, and state level. It works. It's rewarding. It's the only thing the individual can do that has a real impact on the outcome of elections.

So, there's the challenge. Get someone elected where you are.

[ThomWV]

73. We have already seen that a Democratic House will not impeach an obvious criminal

Bush. The most easily impeached President in our history had anyone in Democratic Leadership bothered to try.

[former9thward]

78. No court in which to try him?

Sorry that is just not true. Any judge at any level can be indicted and tried in federal district court.