Clarence Thomas is Still Alive!

The most un-self-aware Justice in history blames the Supreme Court's current dysfunction on leaks, and not on the most radical ideological activist anti-stare decisis Justices in the history of the court.

The Jan 6 Commission is requesting, nicely, that Ms. Thomas come in under oath. She has previously said that she wants to.

However I'll be really surprised if she does. Her lawyer will undoubtedly advise her that prison is a cold and lonely place, even for a SCOTUS Justice's wife.

I made this exact same suggestion to my Representative Pramila Jayapal. Glad to see AOC has taken up the same logic and made a formal proposal.

Wouldn't it be wild if this legal avenue gained some traction and impeachment proceedings were actually started? I mean, legally, it's a cut-and-dried case. Lying to Congress is a felony.

It's the same problem as with Trump. The Republicans won't remove them.

SCOTUS is more bitterly divided than it's ever been, Kagan's dissent today just DRIPS with contempt for the newest members.  Rightfully so.

So the swearing in today of Ketanji Jackson Browne, I mean Ketanji Brown Jackson is an opportunity.  Will her superior intellect and renown persuasive powers be able to civilize the court?  Even if her own liberal views are not considered by the Koch puppets, she can maybe(?) moderate the tone of the Court, which has gotten positively venomous.

richard09 wrote:

It's the same problem as with Trump. The Republicans won't remove them.

Doesn't mean the Democrats shouldn't make the Republicans go on record, during an election year, as supporting felony lying to Congress by sitting Supreme Court Justices.

Here's a compromise suggestion. Clarence can remain on the Court, but he must divorce his wife and have no contact with her.

richard09 wrote:

It's the same problem as with Trump. The Republicans won't remove them.

What if Dems win a larger Senate majority in November?

According to the Court's docket, they're not done doing the Koch's bidding.

1. Removing clean water standards
   
2. Making extreme gerrymandering legal
   
3. Eliminating Affirmative Action in college admissions
   
4. Making it legal for state legislatures to overturn elections
   
5. Eliminating LGBTQ legal protections
   
6. Making it legal to take children away from Native American families
   

If John Roberts was ethical and deserving of respect and really cared about SCOTUS, he'd ban Thomas or censure him or force him to recuse.

I don't know if a SC justice has ever been impeached, but Thomas clearly deserves it.

Sheldon Whitehouse, faced with losing the majority in six weeks, has finally decided to grow a pair.

Over the wrong issue..... but I guess it's better than nothin'.

Now, will it do any good?

John Roberts, faced with losing the publc's confidence over a series of egregiously wrong decisions...

Has decided to take on a case over dog toys.

WTF is he thinking? Seriously? The Supreme Court?

Clarence Thomas is totally and thoroughly corrupt.

Raise your hand if you're surprised.

Heather Cox Richardson

Quote :

Today, Justice Clarence Thomas released a statement saying that he did not disclose the lavish gifts he received from right-wing megadonor Harlan Crow on the advice of “colleagues and others in the judiciary,” but he did not say who those individuals were. He says he will comply with new regulations in the future.

Thomas said that he and his wife Ginni had been dear friends of the Crows for over 25 years, but he joined the court over 30 years ago, making more than one commenter note that the friendship certainly seemed to be based on Crow’s access to the Supreme Court through Thomas. In 2011, Ian Millhiser, then of ThinkProgress, noted that Thomas sided with the American Enterprise Institute and the Center for the Community Interest, both of which were affiliated with Crow, in every case concerning them that had come before the Supreme Court.

Clarence's buddy collects Nazi memorabilia.  Because, of course he does.  These people are a predictable as the sun setting in the evening.

It strikes me that the lesson of Nazism has been lost in my generation.  Our parents knew the real danger was not the extremism, not the murderous tendencies, not the dehumanization of whole races of people.

No, the lesson was that Nazism was popular.  Normal, regular, rational German people bought into it.  Millions of them.

It started out as benign nationalism, "Germany First" type of rah-rah that everyone could buy into after the crippling sanctions after the Great War. The sense of aggrievement fed into a madman's power-hungry desire for empire.

These days "Nazism" and "Hitler" are used as epithets without context, without the understanding that, at one time not so very long ago, these were very popular.

The danger today is not full-fledged Nazism.  It's the incremental creep of Nazistic tendencies.

The Senate Ethics Committee asked Chief Justice Roberts to testify before the Committee.

He declined.

Instead he sent a letter basically stating that opening up the Court to Congressional oversight would lead to a politicized court. All nine sitting justices signed the letter.

But that pre-supposes that the current ethics complaints against Thomas, Alito and Roberts are political in nature. It assumes that justices having wives who profit from parties having business before the court, or who actively plot to overthrow the government of the United States of America, it paints this as "normal behavior." As something both conservative justices and liberal justices do.

I cannot FATHOM why Sotomeyer, Ketanji-Jackson or Kagen would sign such a blatantly self-serving distortion of the truth. Unless they were forced to?

Luckily, Dick Durban is seeing right through it. Expect major changes in Biden's second term, assuming Democrats win majorities in the House, Senate and White House. This shit cannot stand.

NoCoPilot wrote:

All nine sitting justices signed the letter.

Correction: all nine justices' names were attached to the letter.  They were not signatures.

It's unclear if Kagen, Sotomeyer or Brown-Jackson were even advised their names were going to be used.  This could well have been a power-play by Roberts, daring his new female liberal colleagues to cross him in public....

Associate Justice Thomas is a remarkable piece of shit. He states that he didn't think he had to disclose hospitality in his duties on the Supreme Court.  How many normal "hospitalities" amount to $150,000?  That's more than picking up his dry cleaning.

Thomas has survived and thrived all his life on extraordinary privilege.  He was admitted to law school under Affirmative Action.  He was given scholarships and internships under a racially-motivated diversity clause.  He was seated on the DC Appeals Court because of his color.  He was nominated to the Supreme Court as a Negro to replace Thurgood Marshall, the Court's only other Negro, after Marshall announced his retirement.

And now he takes "hospitality" from a white radical extremist billionaire (who collects Nazi paraphernalia) because of their "friendship." Do you think Harlan Crow cultivated the friendship, after Thomas was seated on the bench, as a way to influence the Court?  So do I.  How many other Black friends has Crow supported with "hospitality?"

Thomas is so fucking dumb he probably thinks he deserves all this special treatment.

NoCoPilot wrote:

John Roberts, faced with losing the publc's confidence over a series of egregiously wrong decisions...

Has decided to take on a case over dog toys.

Thank god this case is finally settled. I can't tell you how many times I went to the store to get liquor and accidentally came home with a dog toy.

Lawyers... who don't know the law.

Unprecedented! SCOTUS just self-imposed ethics rules on Thomas, Barrett, Alito, Kavanaugh and Gorsach (because, let's face it, the other four have not violated common sense restrictions).

Is this a better solution than impeaching the unethical justices?  Well, no.  But it might give a clearer basis for doing so in the (near) future when they ignore the new guidelines.

Should Democrats cease their investigations into wrong-doing on the court?  Absolutely not.  We don't know what has yet to be uncovered.

The most corrupt Supreme Court in U.S. history is making corruption harder and harder to prosecute.