Why Democrats should impeach Justice Clarence Thomas

[babylonsister]

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/why-supreme-court-justice-clarence-thomas-could-be-impeached-n1292076

Why Democrats should impeach Justice Clarence Thomas
While Ginni Thomas has worked as a GOP operative, her husband has refused to recuse himself.
March 16, 2022, 6:37 PM EDT
By Mehdi Hasan, MSNBC Opinion Columnist


snip//

To recap: These reports showed that the wife of a Supreme Court justice not only took undisclosed money from an activist who filed a brief in front of the court, but that she was also part of a campaign to try to overturn the 2020 election result and attended the rally that preceded the attack on the Capitol. And as Ginni Thomas herself helpfully explained in Monday’s interview: “Like so many married couples, we share many of the same ideals, principles, and aspirations for America.”

snip//

Why should we continue to tolerate his outrageous and unethical behavior? Bear in mind, the nine justices on the Supreme Court are the only federal judges in America not bound by a formal judicial ethics code. Instead, they are supposed to regulate themselves. (Stop laughing.)

Plenty of House Democrats will say there is no point even considering an impeachment of Thomas, correctly — if defensively — pointing out that the current Senate would never vote to convict. Can you imagine Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., or Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz. — let alone 17 Republican senators — agreeing to vote to remove a Supreme Court justice for the first time in our history?

But from a purely political point of view, Democrats should be loudly drawing attention to the fact that the wife of a sitting Supreme Court justice supported Trump’s coup attempt. That justice then refused to recuse himself from a case involving the investigation of that coup attempt. There is a clear value in holding impeachment hearings to draw attention to Thomas and his wife and their inappropriate behavior, especially as an increasingly partisan, conservative-majority court guts voting and reproductive rights. What would Republicans be doing if they had held a House majority and, say, Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s spouse had supported attempts to block a duly elected GOP president from taking office and she refused to recuse herself from related cases?

Perhaps above all else, impeachment by the House is still impeachment, no matter what the Senate decides in the trial. A Supreme Court appointment may be for life. But so, too, are impeachments, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi aptly put it in 2020. Democrats in the House have both the constitutional authority and moral obligation to put a permanent asterisk next to Justice Clarence Thomas’ name.

[MineralMan]

1. To what end? The Senate would never vote 2/3 to convict.

There is no point in wasting the House's time.

[JohnSJ]

2. Exactly

[2naSalit]

3. Which is why we need more Dem Senators...

Because that's the only way it could happen.

[lagomorph777]

4. Not realistic, but a functioning DOJ would be investigating him for sedition.

His wife is up to her eyeballs in the coup plot; it's highly unlikely that Clarence is uninvolved.

[Buckeyeblue]

5. I think legislation dictating SC recusal might be better

[totodeinhere]

6. This is a great topic for we political nerds to talk about.

But the average American can only name one Supreme Court justice, let alone know anything about the actions of Thomas and his wife. And I doubt if they even care. What do they care about? Things that affect their real life such as rising gas prices.

[BlueLucy]

7. This is not a good idea at all.

We need 2/3 of the Senate to convict. Also, it would rile republicans and energize them to vote.

[JustAnotherGen]

8. Mehdi Hasan

Knows this can't be accomplished - and it would waste a lot of Congress' time to get it done.


We need to focus on keeping the house and INCREASING our numbers in the Senate.

Do that and everything is on the table.

[fescuerescue]

9. Should impeach Trump again too.

His actions led to Russia invading Ukraine.

[FBaggins]

10. That would be a pretty stupid idea

Not just because it has no chance of success in the Senate (and almost no chance in the House) - but because it almost certainly would only serve to make us look bad and further erode our support in November.

Not only is the connection to any actual "coup attempt" tenuous at best (and fraught with conspiracy theory woo) - but the notion that being married to someone who comits some crime is itself an impeachable offense is pretty ridiculous.


Plenty of House Democrats will say there is no point even considering an impeachment of Thomas

More than enough to cause the attempt to fail. So even the "permanent asterisk" isn't really an option. There are at least a couple of dozen of them who are already worried about losing their seats. I can't imagine that any of them think that this would improve their chances.

[Chainfire]

11. As a kid, I remember billboards suggesting that we impeach Earl Warren.

Is he still on the court?