'Impeach Justice Clarence Thomas' Petition Nears 1 Million Signatures

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  buzz-of-the-orient  •  one month ago  •  21 comments

By:   JAKE JOHNSON

'Impeach Justice Clarence Thomas' Petition Nears 1 Million Signatures

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



'Impeach Justice Clarence Thomas' Petition Nears 1 Million Signatures

"He has shown he cannot be an impartial justice and is more concerned with covering up his wife's coup attempts than the health of the Supreme Court," reads the petition.

GettyImages-1388674897-impeach-thomas.jpg?h=e8682a13&itok=wiVOwrVL

Activists call for the impeachment of Justice Clarence Thomas outside of the U.S. Supreme Court on March 30, 2022 in Washington, DC. (Photo: Paul Morigi/Getty Images for MoveOn)

A petition calling on  the Democratic-controlled House to launch impeachment proceedings against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is on the verge of reaching one million signatures, an indication of growing public outrage over the right-wing judge's proximity to efforts to overturn the 2020 election and his role in the ongoing attack on constitutional freedoms.

The  petition , posted to the website of progressive advocacy group MoveOn, currently has more than 989,000 signatures after a surge following the Supreme Court majority's ruling in  Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization , which ended the constitutional right to abortion.

"He must resign—or Congress must immediately investigate and impeach."

In his concurring opinion in  Dobbs , Thomas  plainly stated  his desire to reconsider other landmark Supreme Court rulings, including those establishing marriage equality and the right to obtain contraception.

"Thomas—who sided with the majority on overturning  Roe —made it clear what's next: to overturn high court rulings that establish gay rights and contraception rights," reads the petition. "And if that's not enough: Recently, Justice Clarence Thomas voted against a Supreme Court decision to compel the release of Donald Trump's records regarding the January 6 insurrection and attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election."

The petition also spotlights recent reporting  exposing  Thomas' wife Ginni's role in attempts to invalidate the 2020 election and keep former President Donald Trump in power. Despite his wife's efforts, which have  drawn scrutiny  from the House January 6 committee, Thomas did not recuse himself from Supreme Court cases involving the 2020 election.

"Thomas' failure to recuse himself warrants immediate investigation and heightened alarm," the petition states. "And it's only the latest in a long history of conflicts of interest in the service of a right-wing agenda and mixing his powerful role with his conservative political activism. He has shown he cannot be an impartial justice and is more concerned with covering up his wife's coup attempts than the health of the Supreme Court."

"He must resign—or Congress must immediately investigate and impeach," adds the petition, which is titled "Impeach Justice Clarence Thomas."


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Buzz of the Orient    one month ago

RED BOX RULE:  The topic is the petition for the impeachment of Clarence Thomas, and the reasons why, and the SCOTUS generally.  Off topic comments will be deleted.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
2  seeder  Buzz of the Orient    one month ago

Not being that familiar with American law, what would impeachment accomplish in this case?  Would it remove him from the SCOTUS?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.1  Ender  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2    one month ago

No SC justice has ever been successfully impeached. Only two were tried I think, both absolved by the senate or something.

It will go nowhere.

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
2.2  bbl-1  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2    one month ago

The answer is yes.  And his wife may have shown the path.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
2.3  Tacos!  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2    one month ago

The process works like it does for the president. The House of Representatives impeaches the justice on a simple majority vote. Then a trial is held in the Senate and he would be convicted on a 2/3 vote of that body. At that point, he would be removed from his position on the Court. That has never happened.

The standard people are familiar with - i.e. “high crimes and misdemeanors” is, to my understanding, specific to the president, VP, and other government “officers.”

Federal judges and justices hold their offices “during good behaviour” whatever the hell that means. I think only one Supreme Court justice has ever been impeached (over 200 years ago), and he was not convicted. Lower level judges are impeached and removed - somewhat rarely - and it’s usually over some kind of fraud, corruption, or other actual crime.

If the justice were removed, the president could nominate his replacement.

We really resist impeaching a justice over the decisions they make because we want the judiciary to remain independent of politics and free to give their honest judgments without fear of repercussion.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
2.3.1  seeder  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Tacos! @2.3    one month ago

Thanks for that very good explanation.  However, I somewhat marvel at your statement....

"We really resist impeaching a justice over the decisions they make because we want the judiciary to remain independent of politics and free to give their honest judgments without fear of repercussion."

"independent of politics"?   Politics seems to be very much part of the decisions made by the SCOTUS justices when the 6-3 division is so CLEARLY imposed. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
2.3.2  Tacos!  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.3.1    one month ago

RIght. What I mean is that we don’t want them to fear political repercussions. Every justice is a political creature in their own right.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
2.3.3  seeder  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Tacos! @2.3.2    one month ago

Okay, understood.

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
3  bbl-1    one month ago

Thomas impeachment, although clearly warranted, is highly unlikely.  His days are numbered anyway.

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
3.1  arkpdx  replied to  bbl-1 @3    one month ago
Thomas impeachment, although clearly warranted 

Not being liked by the left is not a reason for impeachment. Just because you can't have things your way is no reason to silence a voice of reason. 

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
3.1.1  bbl-1  replied to  arkpdx @3.1    one month ago

[removed]

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
3.1.2  arkpdx  replied to  bbl-1 @3.1.1    one month ago

[removed]

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
3.1.3  bbl-1  replied to  arkpdx @3.1.2    one month ago

[removed]

 
 
 
Gazoo
Sophomore Silent
3.1.4  Gazoo  replied to  bbl-1 @3.1.3    one month ago

[removed]

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
3.1.5  bbl-1  replied to  Gazoo @3.1.4    one month ago

[removed]

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3.1.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  bbl-1 @3.1.1    one month ago
removed for context by charger

Impeach Thomas because the people of Ohio passed a law I don't like.

Even for progressives, that's a remarkably bad argument. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
4  arkpdx    one month ago

It is a good thing that we don't impeach people because of petitions. [removed]

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
4.1  arkpdx  replied to  arkpdx @4    one month ago

I guess the author/seeder thinks disagreeing with him or her is not on topic. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
4.1.1  seeder  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  arkpdx @4.1    one month ago

That's not so at all - if your comment was removed it was because you contravened the rule stated in the opening comment, and the moderators agreed that you did, as indicated by the moderators for being the reason.

RED BOX RULE:  The topic is the petition for the impeachment of Clarence Thomas, and the reasons why, and the SCOTUS generally.  Off topic comments will be deleted.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
5  Tacos!    one month ago

According to Article III of the Constitution, SCOTUS justices hold their offices “during good behaviour,” and they are not impeached for shitty judgments. All the stories about his wife notwithstanding, I think it’s hard to make a strong constitutional argument for removing Thomas from the bench.

Having said that, imagine if Thomas were up for nomination right now. I don’t think there is any way a judge who talked about rolling back so many rights could ever be approved. It’s one thing to be judicially conservative, but that should not translate into the urge to restrict the personal lives of people.

For me, the mean-spirited attacks he has made on liberty in recent days make him an inappropriate choice for Supreme Court justice. Whether that should directly translate into an impeachment is a harder constitutional question.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
5.1  seeder  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Tacos! @5    one month ago

Good post. 

 
 

Who is online


Kavika
GregTx
Waykwabu


30 visitors