Why shouldn't Clarence Thomas be impeached?
If Mr. Justice Thomas takes allegations he committed perjury for 13 years seriously enough to defend himself before a recent Federalist Society dinner, then they're certainly serious enough to warrant formal investigation of said allegations.
And if these allegations are based on written evidence, as they apparently are -- among said evidence is, reportedly, 13 years of sworn financial disclosure forms claiming Mrs. Thomas earned no income, when in fact she earned plenty, much directly related to cases before him -- then it looks to non-lawyer me like something that can only be decided in a trial -- which is what an impeachment is.
Mr. Justice Thomas reportedly excused himself by claiming he simply "...inadvertently omitted (to report the income) due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions." But when made before him, he's consistently dismissed that argument out of hand, so let's hear no more of that.
Common Cause, which uncovered this, took a more cautious bead on the issue when it wrote to Attorney General Eric Holder and suggested that Justices Thomas and Scalia should have recused themselves from certain cases before the Supreme Court -- especially, in Mr. Justice Thomas' case, Citizens United v. FEC.
And considering the likelihood that convicting Mr. Justice Thomas of perjury would at a minimum throw 13 years of Supreme Court decisions into question, I suppose recommending mere recusal is a prudent, even achievable goal.
Even Professor Jonathan Turley of Georgetown Law School, who, in the weekend edition of The Los Angeles Times, makes the case against Mr. Justice Thomas much better than I can, likewise makes no call for impeaching Mr. Justice Thomas.
But not being a Washington-based politician, I feel no such compunction.
After all: If Bill Clinton could be impeached for getting trapped into lying about what went on between him and poor Ms. Lewinsky, a Supreme Court Justice can certainly be impeached for what appears to be voluntarily lying under oath for 13 years.
I guess I can understand why Democratic politicians wouldn't want to pick up this particular dirty stick; touching it would get everybody dirty, and the Democrats' obvious strategy for lo these many years has been to try to appear the reasonable party.
But aside from achieving so little, this has infuriated the Democratic base and encouraged its Right-Wing enemies to wage ever-more aggressive war against them, and against the entire, century-old Progressive edifice.
Now the Right is laying siege to fundamental towers of said edifice -- collective bargaining, for instance -- and there's still no powerful counter-attack from its supposed defenders.
And nobody reading this needs be told what two-years of political theater over this issue would mean for the 2012 elections, or what a decisive win -- or loss -- in that election will mean for this country.
Mr. Justice Thomas argues that an attack on him is an attack on the Court: But that's built on a phony premise. Not only is Mr. Justice Thomas not the Supreme Court itself -- he's a mere member, in fact -- but it's no serious stretch to argue that removing a corrupt Justice defends the Court and its integrity.
Elected officials don't have to be prime movers here -- they can appear to be merely responding to the demands of their constituents. In fact, what's called for here is a grassroots movement to demand Mr. Justice Thomas be called to account.
How about it, fellow citizens?
Visit me at ReinbachsObserver.com
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
Awesome. Didn't know the law worked that way.
1) Thomas paid all his taxes - Rangel did not pay his taxes
2) Thomas's Fed Disclosure lists the total amount of household income correctly - Rangel omitted income (same form)
3) Thomas (and his wife) earned their income legally. Rangel illegally held multiple subsidized housing units in New York and made profit subletting them
The left treats Thomas as a criminal for simply omitting the words "The Heritage Foundation" from a form. Rangel IS a criminal and the left defends him to the death.
re: your 7:18PM posting--readers, please consult the first thread, below...:
You say that it's not perjury, and OK, because Thomas says it was all inadvertant--a mere mistake.
So if I'm walking down a street with an ounce of pot and a cop stops me and I tell him I didn't realize pot was illegal, he should just let me go on my say-so? Or that some laws are more important than others? Are those really your arguments?
I can see why you're getting so worked up, Bam. The principle here is the same one that got Clinton impeached--nobody is above the law, not even high officials. And here, we've got a confession.
If Republicans defend Thomas, they're calling themselves hypocrites for not accepting that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If they don't defend him, they look like they'll throw anybody under the bus to stay in power. Either way, they look like they have no principles and there goes the GOP's posture of moral superiority in the next election.
And it doesn't have to go to impeachment, as long as it gets good play in the media--practically a given. So I guess in the end, I'd feel sorry for you, if I didn't consider people like you a danger to the Constitution, and the government of, by, and for the People.
Have a nice day.
Meanwhile, we must keep this issue before the public, it will actually help us win back the House. Let's not fail either ourselves or justice.
___________________________
So I'm supposed to trust his judgement of interpreting the constitution when he can't even understand instructions that tens of millions of Americans follow every year???
Some people are just more equal under the eyes of the law than others, especially when you have people like Clarence Thomas acting as those eyes.
Clarence Thomas lied, what part of complete this section wording is hard to comprehend.
The instructions are simple enough even a grade school student would understand.
Yet, Thomas
"B. Spouse's Non-Invest ment Income - If you were married during any portion of the reporting period,
please complete this section (dollar amount not required except for honoraria) "
It's a simple to fill out form.
And the fact that he previously had filled this out and stopped, should concern you.
If it were one year..that could be construed as a simple mistake, but years in a row not filling out this one line on a simple to fill out form?
Questionable.
Most of our court system has become a sick joke on the American prople and the "justice" it is supposed to promote. Elected judges are beholden to those who donated to their campaigns and from the lowest to the highest courts in the land the judges and justices rule according to their personal agendas and ideologies.
I think he will stand tough. The clowns on the left needs some jokers on the right to form this circus.
IOKIYAR