Clarence Thomas' Dangerous Conceit

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by 184550, Mar 9, 2011.

  1. 184550 Guest

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    #1
    LA Times- Clarence Thomas' Dangerous Conceit

    Perhaps it's time to ponder impeachment proceedings?

    The more I research his tenure on the Court, the more alarming his actions, or perhaps lack thereof, become.
     
  2. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #2
    Wow- this guy's nomination was never a good idea from the start. I remember the uproar over him back then. Turns out we were right. He should not be on the Court.
     
  3. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
  4. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #4
    Probably not. Remember, impeachment must be accompanied by conviction for it to have any effect. He must be impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate (IIRC), a pretty high bar that I believe has never actually been fully cleared.
     
  5. 184550 thread starter Guest

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    #5
    Personally I wouldn't really care about the actual effects of said impeachment.

    IMO, such a move would be largely symbolic any ways given that the only impeachment of a SCOTUS Justice was what, 1805?

    Let's at least have a historical record, whatever its effect, saying 'Hey, we knew this guy was a scumbag.'
     
  6. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #6
    Hasn't this guy already committed a crime by not disclosing his wife's income?
     
  7. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #7
    Unfortunately, the actual effect of an impeachment (nevermind the fact that this House would almost certainly not even take it up) could Prove to be not what we were hoping for. Consider 1998. What was the ultimate effect if impeaching Bill Clinton?

    Well, we do have this thing called "common law", which says you are innocent until convicted. Impeachment requires a public trial and conviction, no matter how certain we might be of his guilt.
     
  8. 184550 thread starter Guest

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    #8
    I agree, the likelihood of a successful impeachment is extremely limited.

    While I agree that the impeachment, like any action undertaken, could have unintended consequences, IMO, the impeachment of a SCOTUS Justice is in no way equal to or otherwise similar to the impeachment of a US President.
     
  9. KingYaba macrumors 68040

    KingYaba

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Location:
    Up the irons
    #9
    How sad. I would file charges but I don't know how.
     
  10. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #10
    He is the scariest person in the Supreme Court. Like fivepoint, he's stuck in some kind of timewarp where he pretends to know what the founding fathers were thinking. He is probably the most silent justice ever and his wife is a whackjob extraordinaire.

    I agree that impeachment would backfire. Let's hope that his lifespan is short, because that's the only way he's going to leave the court.
     
  11. Rt&Dzine macrumors 6502a

    Rt&Dzine

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    #11
    Only $700,000 from the Heritage Foundation, plus more from other conservative organizations. Such a small amount of income it would be easy to overlook. :rolleyes:

    He lied when he was nominated so what did everyone expect once he got the power. He's such a sleaze bag. Sucking on the Koch's pockets.
     

Share This Page