Impeach Justice Clarence Thomas For Ruling In Favor Of His Own Campaign Contributors

[Omaha Steve]

Could it possibly get any worse? It just recently came to light that
so-called "Citizens United", nothing more than a corporate sponsored
astroturf lobbying organization, the very same group he ruled in
favor of to decimate our campaign finance laws last year, was the
driving force in paying for and running ads to promote the
confirmation of Thomas himself to the Supreme Court.

The standard for a justice to step aside from hearing a particular
case is supposed to be whether there might be an "appearance of
impartiality". Yet here we have a member of the Supreme Court handing
decisions to the people who were instrumental in putting him on the
court in the first place. It is simply unacceptable to have a someone
sitting on the Supreme Court with such patent contempt for simple
fairness.

Impeach Thomas Action Page:
http://www.peaceteam.net/action/pnum1076.php

In fact, all the so-called justices who voted in favor of Citizens
United should be impeached. Scalia has shown similar contempt for any
suggestion he should recuse himself from cases where he was clearly
biased in favor of one side, always the corporate one. And we know
now that Roberts and Alito lied through their teeth at their
confirmation hearings about their committed reactionary agenda.

So help us get that word out there by getting one of the "Impeach The
Supreme Court 5" bumper stickers. There is no charge whatsoever, not
even shipping, if you have not requested a bumper sticker already.
And here is the page where you can do that. Of course, if you can
make a donation of any amount, this is what makes it possible for us
to send free bumper stickers to anyone who cannot make a donation
right now.

Impeach Supreme Court bumper stickers:
http://www.peaceteam.net/bumper_stickers.php

And if you are a super activist, please consider picking up a bulk
pack of 25 of these for a very modest cost, to hand out to your
friends and neighbors, and be a real community organizer.

Impeach Supreme Court bulk packs:
http://www.peaceteam.net/bumper_stickers_bulk.php

And here is the Facebook link for the Impeach Thomas action page
further above.

Action Page:
http://apps.facebook.com/fb_voices/action.php?qnum=pnum1076

And this is the Twitter reply for this same action

@cxs #p1076

Please take action NOW, so we can win all victories that are supposed
to be ours, and forward this alert as widely as possible.

If you would like to get alerts like these, you can do so at
http://www.peaceteam.net/in.htm

usalone432b:132898

[tekisui]

1. knr!

[eomer]

2. What other things do we propose to get the Republican majority in the House to do?

After impeaching the conservative Supreme Court justices, I propose that next we get them to pass a single payer healthcare system.

Why didn't we think before of just asking the Republicans to do some things we want them to?

[panzerfaust]

3. Why? That's what they paid him to do!

He is an honest judge: Once he accepts a bribe he stays bribed.

[onehandle]

4. K&R. nt

[xchrom]

5. Recommend

[Fuddnik]

6. Kick and Rec!

And I thimk that's the "appearance of impropriety", not "impartiality."

[exboyfil]

7. Should Thurgood Marshall have recused himself

from Civil Rights cases? Just asking. I think what Thomas has done (especially lack of disclosure) is shameful. Recusal on the other hand cuts both ways.

[onenote]

9. You are right. Recusal can be a thorny issue.

For example, should a Justice recuse themselves from any case in which an interested party testified for the Justice's confirmation? Should a Justice recuse themselves from a case in which a party testified against the Justice's confirmation? One of the witnesses testifying against Sotomayor's confirmation was there as a representative of the NRA. Should she recuse herself from any cases involving gun control issues in which the NRA is a party or a participant? I don't think so, and I'm not saying that every case is the same. Just that these are not easy issues. If someone claimed Sototmayor should recuse herself from any case in which the People for the American Way or the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights are parties or participants, I would disagree, notwithstanding the fact that those groups funded ads supporting Sotomayor's confirmation.

[Kablooie]

11. Did Thurgood Marshall rule on an organization he had a personal connection to?

The fact you agree with an organization's views is different than donating money and then ruling on them.

[Recursion]

14. Did Thomas? (nt)

[exboyfil]

18. He was the chief counsel for the NAACP

He was also Solicitor General. Both positions could very easily have led to the need to recuse himself.

I did some research, and Marshall recused himself from a large number of cases because of his SG service (I was not aware of this). He did a couple of recusals for the NAACP.

I retract the comparison. Actually Marshall stands as a shining example of when a Justice should recuse himself/herself. Any reporter worth their salt could work through the two examples and make a nice story.

Still cuts both ways though - if Kagan recused like Marshall she would be off the table for the healthcare decisions.

I don't think either will recuse themselves.

[JoePhilly]

12. Thomas not only received support to help him get the position,

his wife CONTINUES to get paid.

Sorry, this is wrong.

Same when a Justice is giving closed door speeches at fund raising events.

Cheney and Scalia go duck hunting? WTF?

Buying the Supreme Court is now "just business".

[Recursion]

15. Not by a party to any case they've heard (nt)

[JoePhilly]

17. Citizen's United.

The same corporate groups who helped fund that case also fund the Tea Party groups who Thomas' wife works for. That's the whole point of the front groups.

Cheney had been CEO of Haliburton which had a case come before the SC as well right around the time they went duck hunting.

[Mnemosyne]

8. K&R for more visibility and disgust. n/t

[steve2470]

10. k&r nt

[Recursion]

13. Having a pre-set ideology doesn't mean a judge should recuse himself

Especially since the Supreme Court basically never tries facts in any case.

Nobody who looks at Thomas's career can seriously say he changed his views because of a financial incentive. He has his views. He's always had his views. We know exactly how he's going to vote on any case.

[Recursion]

16. The plaintiffs in Citizens United never gave any money to Thomas or Scalia

Is your argument that they're "all conservatives", so we can treat it as one huge nexus? That would be a hard political sell and an impossible legal sell.