Grounds for removal
Lawyers and journalists comment on the news about the depth and breadth of Clarence Thomas’s contempt for ethics rules.
This is why public trust in the Supreme Court is cratering: Clarence Thomas Secretly Accepted Luxury Trips From GOP Donor — ProPublica https://t.co/lbJCIqZ6XH
— Jane Mayer (@JaneMayerNYer) April 6, 2023
Do I believe Clarence Thomas votes *differently* because he's a corrupt troll who gets paid off on the side by Republican donors? No, actually. I think he would say the crap he says for free.
Do I think public corruption is grounds for removal from the bench? Yes. Of course. https://t.co/98Dnrklp6R
— Elie Mystal (@ElieNYC) April 6, 2023
Clarence Thomas broke the law. There is no place on the Supreme Court for a justice who is a lawbreaker. https://t.co/pI5V02Jqb5
— Norman Ornstein (@NormOrnstein) April 6, 2023
BREAKING: Clarence Thomas has been taking luxury vacations for years paid for by a billionaire Republican donor and has never disclosed them, an apparent violation of the law
— Citizens for Ethics (@CREWcrew) April 6, 2023
The Supreme Court’s legitimacy comes from the public’s belief that Justices are not politicians, that they merely apply the law to individual facts. Clarence Thomas has shaken that belief with his corrupt behavior. For the good of the Court and of the country, he needs to resign. https://t.co/o1DCDsokL2
— Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) April 6, 2023
I’m sure that Congress will look at the evidence dispassionately, and take appropriate action without any consideration of partisan advantage.
I’m also sure I’ll finally get that pony I’ve been asking for next Christmas.
Since the House won’t impeach him, he gets away with it.
What would have happened all those years ago if Biden had taken Anita Hill seriously?
Mike, I’m dubious that replacing 1990s Biden with 2023 Biden (or anyone with a modern enlightened sensibility) would have prevented Thomas from being confirmed. Yes, more evidence would have come to light, but I have little confidence that it would have swayed enough Senators in those days. Let’s remember that the media was running stories then about “what is sexual harassment” because it was a new concept to many people, or at least the notion that anything other than quid-pro-quo “sleep with me or you’re fired” threats could be harassment. Then factor in that senators, even Democratic ones, skew older.
I mean, absolutely criticize Biden for making the wrong call then — I think Biden has admitted as much — but I’m not sure that he, personally, was the pivot point in history there.
Screechy, it wouldn’t even make any difference now. We should all remember Brett Kavanaugh…
iknklast, true.
I went and looked at the vote on Thomas’s confirmation. It was 52-48. Only two Republicans voted no: Jeffords (VT), who would later switch parties, and Packwood (OR), which is ironic considering that he would later resign in the face of sexual harassment allegations (though Packwood’s cited reason for opposing Thomas was abortion).
There were 11 Democrats who voted yes — the Dems held a 57-43 edge at the time — but a lot of those were southern “Blue Dogs.” (To be clear, Biden voted no on the nomination.) I don’t really know enough about those senators to speculate about any of them flipping had more information about Hill’s allegations come to light. The only yea votes still in the Senate today are Murkowski, McConnell, and Grassley.
Even if the result of the Thomas confirmation hearings had been different, that’s not a reason to believe that a better candidate would have taken his place. GHWB would have shopped some equally petrified candidate.
Well he could have but I don’t think we know he would have. Conservative is one thing and Clarence Thomas is another.
Prof. Anita Hill told us all about the “quality” of this man’s character. None of this comes as a surprise, if one believed her to be telling the truth back then.
Agreed… He’s the only Justice I’d put down as Chaotic Evil on the alignment chart. The others are mostly Neutral Evil (Roberts is Lawful Evil).
Screechy’s Comprehensive Guide to SCOTUS:
Thomas: The recent revelations of the depths of his corruption notwithstanding, a sincere right-wing nut. As Elie Mystal said today, he would have voted the same way regardless of what gifts he got. He really believes in all this stuff. He’s even got a few idiosyncratic non-stereotypical conservative views (like on the Confrontation Clause, where he’s made some pro-defendant rulings). But don’t underestimate the “nut” part — he is on record as saying that there is no Constitutional obstacle to, say, Alabama declaring the Baptist Church as the Official Church of Alabama.
Alito: Complete and utter right-wing hack. Has no consistent legal philosophy or principles, and will always rule in the short-term interests of the GOP, and deal with any implications of that precedent later (by which I mean: ignore them).
Roberts: Right-wing dealmaker. Whether because of his natural inclination, or his role as Chief, is very concerned with the Court’s reputation and legitimacy. So he consistently pushes the Court to achieve conservative results in ways designed to not provoke too much outrage. Will happily cut backroom deals towards that end.
Kavanaugh: Not entirely sure of him yet, but seems closest to Roberts except for being a psycho personally who will happily “stick it to the libs” in retaliation for the perceived injustices against him.
Gorsuch: A less radical version of Thomas. Does have actual principles, and so will occasionally surprise with seemingly non-conservative rulings (readers of B&W will be disappointed to be reminded of his ruling in a trans rights case), but still pretty conservative, so he’s going to be a mostly-reliable vote for the conservative bloc.
Coney Barrett: Don’t have a good read on her yet, but my impression is a mix of Alito and Roberts — not quite as hacky as Alito, but doesn’t give a shit about being seen as reasonable.
Kagan: Occasionally frustrating in her naive belief that the conservatives can be reasoned with, and a little too “faculty lounge, can’t we all get along,” but fine. Probably a useful asset to have on the Court because she’ll cut deals with Roberts to make the Court less horrible.
Jackson: too early to say, but seems willing to call out bullshit, which is good since she’s got a couple of decades of writing dissents to look forward to.
Sotomayor: Has had just about enough of this bullshit, but not (yet) prepared to just completely blow shit up.
Okay, so, I did a little research.
According to what I’ve been able to find, while SCOTUS justices need to be impeached to be removed from their position, they do NOT share the immunity to prosecution granted to the President. Functionally, Thomas could be arrested, charged, tried, and even imprisoned for his misdeeds, even while retaining his office.
Since this would make it impossible for him to perform his duties, I suspect that he would insist on holding his office until someone likely to replace him with another conservative came into office. Since the Court is currently so ridiculously stacked, we wouldn’t see much practical change (5-3 is as big a slam dunk as 6-3), but it would theoretically bring us one step closer to a perfectly split Court (if any of the other 5 were to die/step down while the Dems control the White House and the Senate), which would at least render them unable to give us any more of the bullshit we’ve been seeing lately.
[…] a comment by Screechy Monkey on Grounds for […]
Screechy @5,
Small correction: the Murkowski who voted for Thomas was Lisa’s father Frank.
maddog @6,
After Robert Bork lost his confirmation vote, Reagan ended up giving us Anthony Kennedy. Kennedy of course was no one’s idea of a great justice, but he was far more moderate than Bork would’ve been (nightmare scenario: can you imagine a Supreme Court with Bork, Thomas, and Rehnquist?). Bush was less of an ideologue than Reagan; his choice of Thomas to replace Thurgood Marshall was more a cynical ploy to counter charges of racism than an actual reflection of Bush’s politics. If Thomas had been voted down, he might have given us another Kennedy, or even another Souter (who ended up being far more liberal than expected).
WaM,
Yeah, I should have spotted that re Murkowski — I remember thinking wow, she’s been there that long? Grassley I knew has been there forever.
It does make me wonder how she would’ve voted. She was against Kavanaugh (though she voted “Present” for somewhat arcane reasons).
Ok, I’ve never really been able to understand this… Why all the angst over Robert Bork? Wasn’t this the same guy who was Nixon’s headtaker, and thus thoroughly ethically compromised?
Why the hell all the bitching from Republicans that he didn’t get the nomination given that?