Is Clarence Thomas being protected by the leaders of both political parties? Here's why.

[leveymg]

There is explanation for why everyone in Washington wants the really serious allegations against Justice Clarence Thomas to go away, at least for now. It also goes to why the Democratic leadership hanged Rep. Anthony Weiner out to dry, and why nobody in the party has come forward since to pick up his crusade to expose Thomas' criminal violations.

Here's why I think there may be something much larger going on behind closed doors.

There are signs that Thomas has been under pressure to resign since November, 2009, when his wife unexpectedly resigned her long-held job at the Heritage Foundation to start her own Tea Party allied lobbying shop. It was that $120,000 a year job at Heritage that Clarence failed to report for at least five years running on his annual AO-10 Financial Disclosure form, a clear violation of a federal criminal statute, 5 USC App. 104, which carries a year in jail for each violation.

After the 2008 elections, someone finally took a look at the Thomas' disclosure form, after that it was just a matter of time before Clarence had to go.

It's more than likely that by January, when Common Cause publicly revealed Thomas' False Statements, the Chief Justice may have already had a friendly man-to-man chat with Clarence. But, given the kind of fellow he is, I would say Clarence would refuse to go, because he doesn't think he did anything he isn't entitled to.

In addition, the other conservative Justices find Clarence to be useful. So, they won't force him to leave. But, if he were indicted, Roberts and the others who currently don't want to force Clarence out, will inevitably have to do just that.

Another added wrinkle of complexity, which may explain a great deal. More than likely, there's some sort of closed-door Washington deal that was made that Rep. Weiner violated by making a fuss and drawing public attention to Clarence's high crimes and misdemeanors. Whether he got the memo or not, Weiner paid the ultimate penalty for speaking out of turn. The time has come for Thomas, nonetheless: Indict Clarence Thomas.

What could possibly be at stake that the Democrats would throw Weiner under the bus, if there were such a deal? A hint may come from one of the usual suspects. Get a load of this headline from Fox Noise:

June 19, 2011
NYT Tries Trashing Clarence Thomas Ahead of Obamacare Ruling

Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/obamacare/2011/06/19/nyt-tries-trashing-clarence-thomas-ahead-obamacare-vote#ixzz1PkwSo0Qc

Also, consider this:

Supreme Court won't jump into health care fray -- for now
April 25, 2011|By Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer


The justices usually like to have these kinds of petitions fully analyzed and decided by lower courts before tackling them.

The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to jump into the controversial national debate over health care reform at this stage, rejecting a plea from Virginia for a judicial end-around -- an expedited review over whether the sweeping federal law is constitutional.

As expected, the justices without comment on Monday declined the state's "petition for certiorari before judgment."

Various state and private challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act are now before federal appeals courts across the United States -- meaning it could take several months, at least, before they would go to the U.S. Supreme Court. Unusual requests such as Virginia's, to have its appeal move to the head of the line, rarely succeed since the justices traditionally like to have these kind of petitions fully analyzed and decided by lower courts before tackling them. http://articles.cnn.com/2011-04-25/justice/scotus.healthcare.reform_1_appeals-court-affordable-care-act-health-care?_s=PM:CRIME

It is not really so clear why certiorari was not granted in the Health Care Reform law suit, but the calculation was no doubt political on both sides. Four Justices at Conference ("Rule of four") will suffice to grant certiorari and place the case on the court's calendar. I can see why the leadership might have been upset when, in late January Rep. Weiner jumped on Thomas after Common Cause released its report about Thomas' criminal violation of law, such a deal was still in the works.

But, what now? Does Clarence's day of reckoning wait until after that vote next year? Why would any Democrat want Clarence Thomas on the Court to decide that and dozens of other cases in the meantime?

Geez. This is almost as much fun as the Kremlin Watching of the Bush years.

[monmouth]

1. A lot of good investigative work there. This should be interesting....n/t

[leveymg]

14. My last five out of six journal entries have focused on this case. Might be worth reading

for background: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/leveymg

[drm604]

2. Maybe I'm dense

but I don't quite follow why you think the Democrats are protecting him.

I'm not saying they're not, they may well be. I just don't follow what you're claiming.

[leveymg]

3. There was a deal made not to bring HCR before the Court this session. Clarence was part of the deal

Perhaps because neither side wants to lose that one. So, everyone agreed to put it off, but only if Clarence stays. Otherwise, the Dems would win, which the GOP obviously would want to avoid.

This is just a brain-storm. But, thought it was worth sharing.

[drm604]

12. Okay. I follow what you're saying now.

Not sure if I agree but it's an interesting thought. :hi:

[former9thward]

20. If you knew anything about the Supreme Court you would know there was no deal.

The court likes procedure and past practice. They did not take the case because the Appeals court had not given a decision yet. They still haven't. Therefore the record had not been developed. No deal. No conspiracy.

[2banon]

21. interesting theory..

thanks for the concise analysis and for positing thoughts that might explain the game behind the scenes on this matter. The shell games can get tedious to me and there are sooooo many of them to follow.

It will be interesting watching the threads unravel on this in the coming months.. I'll stay posted with your trackings!

Thanks!

[defendandprotect]

52. Clarence Thomas isn't a one time act ... he's their ace for any rw decision....

and he's on the court because Joe Biden pretty much put him there --

Think about that one --

Meanwhile, obviously the Ginny/Heritage job was a payoff to Thomas --

which is probably another reason why he didn't want to report it --

[dotymed]

41. Me too.

I don't really understand why this would make the Democrats protect this scum. Unless the "Democrats" are actually just corporatists, like the present bulk of "our" party.

Only if they did NOT want "Obamacare" to go into effect, IMO, would they protect Thomas.. Of course, Universal Health Care is what we actually need to protect our citizens and to lower the cost of medical care.

As far as I can tell, from an insured persons view. One who closely examines all medical bills paid by my insurance company and the outrageous "discounts" received by my insurance company. It was a 97% discount from the facility where my son's surgery was performed. From an initial (uninsured person's) charge of almost $28,000 to the $800 my carrier was charged.

Can you imagine that steep of a "discount?" If medical providers (even without universal health care) would charge the same "discounted amount" to uninsured people, that they do to insurance companies, people could actually afford to be treated.

It seems, in this current "reality," that a Dr. who did not accept health insurance could charge affordable rates for all, without affecting his bottom line.

I suspect that the bulk of health care providers profits must result from the uninsured or poorly insured.

It is quite obvious in my case that the insurers realize Much more profits than the professionals who actually provide our care.

Still, why would "we" benefit from maintaining the SCOTUS status quo by protecting an unapologetic, profit before anything or anyone, "Justice?"

Scalia could be brought down almost as easily as Thomas, and he should be.

[mistertrickster]

48. I had some surgery done to when I cut into my hand with a power saw.

(Wasn't as bad as it sounds . . . just soft-tissue damage and phys therapy for scarring)

The surgeon charges 3 times what the insurance pays.

WTF? Why are there different costs for different people?

That's basically illegal in every other business except health care, isn't it?

[valerief]

73. Maybe every American should incorporate themselves as an insurance company.

Then we could get affordable healthcare with insurance company rates.

[mistertrickster]

78. Hehehe, good idea. nt

[RhodaA]

72. Ditto. I don't follow the reasoning either.

[enough]

4. What are the signs that he has "been under pressure to resign?" Pressure from whom?

Yes, there has been harsh criticism of his lack of honesty in tax matters, conflict of interest, etc. But except from those who have been critical of him all along, I don't see anything that would count as "pressure to resign." It will take a lot more than intense criticism to get him to start thinking of resignation, since in reality he's basically above the law.

I don't think he will experience criticism from the left as any sort of pressure that he has to acknowledge. Is there some other kind of pressure you have heard about?

[leveymg]

7. It starts with the resignation of Virginia Thomas from the Heritage Foundation

in 2009. Why would she have to leave a well-paying job she's held since 2000?

Charges of conflict-of-interest had been raised while she was there since it came out she was collecting résumés for potential Presidential appointments in the George W. Bush Administration when the Supreme Court was deciding Bush v. Gore. She continued to work at the Heritage Foundation during the administration of George W. Bush, serving as the think tank's White House Liaison.

It was a political appointment, a patronage job, a sinecure from which the Heritage Foundation finally let her go after the 2008 election ended her usefulness and made it too hot to continue their patronage of him through her.

Wiki:

In late 2009, Thomas started a nonprofit Tea Party-affiliated lobbying group, Liberty Central, to organize conservative activists, issue score cards for Congress members, and be involved in elections.<25> The group is aimed at opposing what Thomas has called the leftist "tyranny" of President Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats and “protecting the core founding principles” of the nation.<26> Thomas was interviewed by Sean Hannity on his Fox News show Hannity in June 2010. When asked about potential conflicts between her Liberty Central activities and her husband's position, Thomas replied, "there's a lot of judicial wives and husbands out there causing trouble. I'm just one of many."<27>

In February 2011, Politico reported that Thomas was the head of a new company, Liberty Consulting, Inc., which filed incorporation papers in mid-November 2010. The company's website states that clients can use Thomas's “experience and connections” to help “with “governmental affairs efforts” and political donation strategies.<28>

[leveymg]

26. The best time-line that tracks the unfolding of Thomasgate and the destruction of Weiner:

http://www.americablog.com/2011/06/what-was-rep-weiner-working-on-before.html

■ In February, Anthony Weiner gets 74 congresspeople to send a letter to Clarence Thomas asking him to explain himself, then launches a Conflicted Clarence Thomas campaign, attempting to shame him into a recusal on any health care case. From Weiner's petition (feel free to click and sign):

The Thomas household has profited from opposition to health care reform. His wife has already taken nearly $700,000 from health care opponents and now openly advertises herself as a crack lobbyist with the “experience and connections” to overturn the law of the land. Use the form on the right to stand with Anthony Weiner and his House colleagues, co-signing their letter and calling on Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from any cases regarding the constitutionality of the health care reform law immediately in the interest of maintaining impartiality in nation's highest court.

Note that the "nearly $700,000" number will turn out to be wrong, significantly low.

■ Liberty Central is forced, presumably by Weiner's constant tweaking, to release its own IRS forms showing $150,000 in payments to Ginni Thomas, President and CEO, in 2010 (jump to page 12 using the pop-up toolbar at the bottom). Liberty Central is on record as opposing Obama's Affordable Care Act, perhaps the reason this income didn't make it to Clarence Thomas's first round of income-correction. The ACA may well come before the Court on which Thomas sits.

■ On May 27 (a Friday), Thomas announces he will release his amended disclosures later that day, and starting at 9:14 am there's a lot of Twitter traffic from @RepWeiner about it, eleven straight tweets at one point, including this one. Note that the "nearly $700,000" number is now $800,000 (that we know about).

■ Later that evening, Weiner tweets that his Facebook account has been hacked and the chicken-in-the-pants pic goes out (no link; this is why god made google, folks).

[glinda]

68. Yup. He paid a price. I think it the old adage "an eye for an eye".

[savannah43]

40. There have always been questions about his integrity.

That he was even considered for the position shows how corruption is rampant in the government and how long it's been festering. Protecting corporate interests is not what SCOTUS is supposed to do, yet that is pretty much all they do now.
Consider this too: If Thomas goes now, BHO will appoint the replacement for him. As another conservative appointment will serve all the corporate politicians everywhere and as BHO cannot just outright appoint a known conservative before the 2012 election, if they wait until after the election, then he's free to appointing Rush Limbaugh if he wants to. What is anyone going to do about it? Not vote for him?

[leveymg]

44. The only thing that stands between DC Jail and Clarence Thomas is Eric Holder.

If the AG holds out doing nothing until 2012, that will most likely be the outcome. Unless, of course, we've misread the Administration and an Indictment emerges. Soon.

For me, this is a litmus test of what the Obama Administration really is.

[chervilant]

51. Absolutely,

a litmus test for Obama. I am dismayed that Holder hasn't shown due haste in addressing these high crimes and misdemeanors.

Can't say I have much hope for any change these days...

[txlibdem]

5. I'm Outraged: How Dare You Claim That Millionaires Should Be Jailed For Their Crimes

That has never happened since Ronald Reagan set this country on a path toward the far, far, far, far ,far right. And it's not going to happen now!

:sarcasm:

[BrklynLiberal]

6. Thomas is justplain dumb. They should focus on the evil ones....Alito and Scalia. Roberts too.

[leveymg]

8. He may be a sock puppet, but his vote counts as much as the Robert Scalitos. Besides, he's the only

one who's been stupid enough to actually leave a clear record of his own law breaking and influence peddling.

[enough]

11. So right. Could this actually have consequences? I'm too disillusioned to believe it.

And thanks for your reply above, leveymg.

[leveymg]

13. If we leave it to NYT and the Dem leadership, it won't. We just lost the House 7 mos.

ago with a huge loss in seats because of party insider deal-making and concessions. The people gave this Administration and the 111th Congress a mandate for change, and what we got was lost hope. Already, the leadership is talking as if '12 is all locked up for the Dems. So, don't dare do anything to upset The Deal. That's why Rep. Weiner had to be destroyed so completely, a bi-partisan effort and a warning to others who might dare bring unwanted attention to the Deal and the Made Men.

This is why we lose elections, over and over again. We make deals we can't and won't enforce.

Just be quiet, and let the professionals do their work.

The more disillusioned I become, the more I refuse to go along with The Deal, anymore.

The only way my trust in the system could be confirmed would be if there were already a sealed Indictment for Clarence Thomas, and it gets unsealed. Soon. Unsealed long before the HCR case (or whatever case(s) the Deal that protects Clarence Thomas) goes before the Court. But, I'm afraid, that's just more Hope and Change.

Moving Forward.

[enough]

16. I agree completely with your view of the situation. But I find it hard to believe

that there exists anywhere in our current justice system a sealed indictment of Clarence Thomas. If that should turn out to be true, I would have to rethink the whole thing.

I too refuse to go along with the Deal, but unfortunately my opinion is not being taken into account by the makers of the Deal or anyone else.

As ever, thanks for your work, leveymg.

[leveymg]

17. I confess. I desperately still want to find evidence that the system is self-correcting.

One just have to work really hard to find it. - The Last Loyal Democrat. :hi:

[truth2power]

Your one sentence that really resonates with me..

"The more disillusioned I become, the more I refuse to go along with The Deal, anymore."

Yeah. I've felt pretty disillusioned (politically) this weekend. I've finally reached the point where I'm unwilling to put up with Deals of one kind or another. Enough said.

[chervilant]

53. Well, then,

I hope you'll be one of the many in Freedom Plaza this October. For as long as it takes...

[Tesha]

9. Any one is enough to tip the Court; if Thomas is the easy one to tag, let him be tagged. (NT)

[Enthusiast]

19. This is true.

Thomas can't help the fact that he is just plain dumb.

[2banon]

22. Stupidity can be very damaging

I agree that Roberts, Scalia and Alito to go too for similar reasons. But hey, I'll take The low hanging fruit first!

[savannah43]

60. That's why he never says anything.

His job is to be the majority placeholder. All he has to do is show up, pretend to listen, and then vote as he's told to vote.

[Poll_Blind]

10. Right or wrong, it's still a very interesting theory.

And as disturbing as it is plausible.

PB

[RDANGELO]

15. They want the court to repeal the mandate.

The Obama administration spent a lot of energy and capitol to get the health care package through with the mandate. It has since turned out to be very unpopular. I think that they want the court to overturn the mandate rather than go through the ordeal of asking for the repeal. Once it is struck down by the court, the President can pivot and call for a public option to make up for the cost savings of the mandate. Thus, the mandate is somewhat removed as an issue in the election.

[leveymg]

18. That is like the 13th Dimension of the chess game. My feeling is the majority of the Court doesn't

want to touch this issue. Ever. The Court's legitimacy is already on the endangered species list. This is plutonium.

Like most legislation, HCR will change. The individual mandate was never very much to fight for to begin with. Really, an embarrassment all around. Hardly anything to keep Clarence Thomas on the payroll for, if you ask me. But, that seems to be The Deal.

Time for a new set of Deal Makers, even if the New Deal is kaput. We should have gotten HCR is 1948, but instead we got the Cold War.

Any sane, viable political party would go after Clarence Thomas' head. Indict Clarence Thomas.

[savannah43]

61. They won't repeal it. The insurance companies wrote

the plan, and they want nothing more than to force everyone to pay them for inferior insurance at premium prices. I think the Court will deem the mandate is legal and that will be touted as proof that the Court is not biased. It's pure Rove.

[DeSwiss]

23. Both parties?

Ohhhhh! You mean the Republican and the Democratic Party. Forgive me, but I stop thinking them separately a long time ago. But in answer to your query, in a word: YES. I mean maybe not proactively, but they only do what they're instructed to do by TPTB. It's not like they give a damn about the law or the Constitution or us, or anything

- So like that, yeah......

K&R

[chervilant]

54. Well...

they DO give a damn about their filthy lucre. It is, after all, their raison d'etre.

[2banon]

24. another thought..,

fwiw:

Thomas would cry "political lynching" and the Dems may not have the stomach to respond to such an attack, asinine as it might be.


just a thought..

[w4rma]

25. I don't think there is any deal. Just a bunch of DLCers who wanted to get rid of another non-DLCer.

Simple.

[paparush]

32. THIS!

[border_town]

27. If Clarence Thomas can go down

than so can they all. They are probably scared that they will be next. What a sad state of affairs.

[The Backlash Cometh]

28. What's taking so long?

[OnyxCollie]

29. K&R. nt

[baldguy]

30. Thomas isn't going anywhere.

The only way to remove a sitting Justice who doesn't want to go is through an impeachment trial in the House & Senate. Republicans in the House will never vote to impeach a Republican Justice.

[leveymg]

33. Sitting federal judges can be indicted. Here's a case from '09. Just indict Clarence and the rest

will follow. Whatever the House of Representatives eventually does is irrelevant. The Supreme Court will not allow Clarence Thomas to sit on cases if he's been indicted on a serious federal criminal charge, particularly given his apparent conflict of interest.

Clarence Thomas has one foot in the slammer, as it is. The only one that's keeping him out of DC Jail at this point is Eric Holder.

Indict Clarence Thomas.

There was a federal judge arrested and arraigned after he was busted last year for buying cocaine from a prostitute (betya never heard about that one. Google it) Here's the case of the seated Federal Judge who was recently Indicted: http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/FedCrimes/story?id=5681319&page=1

Federal Judge Indicted in Sex Abuse Case


By THERESA COOK and GINA SUNSERI
Aug. 29, 2008

A federal judge in Texas stands accused of sexually abusing one of his staff members, according to charges filed Thursday.
A federal grand jury returned a three-count indictment against U.S. District Court Judge Samuel B. Kent, 59, for abusive sexual contact and attempted aggravated sexual abuse.

The alleged victim, identified only as "Person A" in the indictment, worked as a deputy court clerk assigned to Kent's court, the document says. A complaint against Kent filed with a judicial review panel in May 2007 identifies the woman as Cathy McBroom.
During an alleged incident in March 2007, Kent "attempted to cause Person A to engage in contact between Person A's mouth and defendant Kent's penis by forcing Person A's head toward defendant Kent's groin area," the indictment charges.

Additionally, the court documents allege that Kent "did knowingly engage in sexual contact with another person without that other person's permission" by inappropriately touching the alleged victim "with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade" during the March 2007 incident and another in August 2003. The indictment says that all of the alleged incidents occurred at the federal courthouse in Galveston, Texas, where Kent and McBroom worked. The Justice Department said in a statement that the FBI is involved in the investigation.

[truth2power]

39. Thomas will never be indicted by Eric Holder..

especially if there was a deal, which is a plausible scenario.

That would explain why Weiner was thrown under the bus even by his own party. It wasn't about Weiner's tweets, or whatever. He was a danger to TPTB, in both so-called parties.

[leveymg]

45. That is the test.

If Eric Holder fails to Indict, there's no resignation, and Clarence hears those cases, Barack Obama may as well have appointed Clarence Thomas as the next Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

There would be no difference in outcomes if Thomas is not Indicted.

[totodeinhere]

58. Even if he is indicted, that could not force him off the court if he doesn't want to go.

According to the constitution, only impeachment and conviction by the Senate can do that. He might very well refuse to resign because as long as hew is a sitting justice chances are nothing will happen to him. But if he resigned he would be fair game.

[leveymg]

63. I think that's very unlikely, particularly if he's sitting in federal prison for five years.

I would think that before it comes to that, his Brethren would be able to persuade him to resign.

[bertman]

31. Interesting ideas, levymg, that deserve more attention. But, as far as Weiner having

to go because of his work exposing Thomas, NO. Weiner had to go because he's an arrogant, irresponsible asshole who chose personal license at the expense of the people he represents.

Other than that, I recommend this post.

[leveymg]

34. Can you accept that it might be that both contributed to Weiner's demise?

Hmm? :eyes:

[bertman]

37. Absolutely, but had Weiner not given them that ammo he would be in office now and could

continue his push for Thomas' impeachment.

[baldguy]

35. If you think Weiner's removal had nothing to do with his attacks on Thomas, you're a fool.

If Weiner had been literally anyone else other than a leading Democrat, there would've been no story & he'd still have a job.

Just look at Thomas: We've always known that he was an arrogant, irresponsible asshole that has been lying about his & his wife's personal finances, that he's a real pervert who has repeatedly harassed his direct female subordinates, and that he was crooked & corrupt to the core - but he's had one of the most powerful offices in the US govt for the last 20 yrs. There's no firestorm of "news" media covering his corruption, and no one in the leadership of either party or any prominent elected official (now that Weiner is gone) that's calling for his investigation, impeachment, indictment or resignation. He's not going anywhere.

[bertman]

36. Excuse me, baldguy, but no Twitter pics equal no grounds for hysteria and resignation.

Comprendo?

If you were taking on some of the most powerful people on the planet would you start sexting or sending sexually-oriented pics over the phone? If so, you're a fool.

[leveymg]

38. You know, Abe Fortas didn't tweet, and didn't commit crimes, but he was forced out for conflict

of interest and apparent ethics lapses. Clarence is clearly indictable for federal offenses - a whole string of them. That's a different animal.

I know, it's a different time. Lower standards, I know. But, how long can the Members of the Supreme Court stand for this sort of breach of basic Rule of Law sitting on the same bench? It's not in the Court's interest as an institution and not in the Justices interest as individuals with a reputation to protect to allow this to go on for too long, now that the fact that Clarence has actually violated a criminal statute is out in the open, and people are talking about it. . . how long, now there is no huge media scandal focusing on someone's penis to distract attention from Thomas?

How long can you allow this go on, Mr. Chief Justice and Honorable Justices? I suspect, if we keep pushing this into public view, not that much longer.

[baldguy]

42. Excuse me: You think actual crimes & actual lies that harm actual people, but with no pictures

are much, much, much less important than pictures of non-crimes and harmless lies that don't harm people - because of the lack of pictures? And the non-crimes deserve punishment, while the actual crimes don't? Because of the lack of pictures?

:wow: :wtf:

This is the kind of bullshit that generates media feeding frenzies over literally nothing (Yes, "Weinergate" was literally nothing), that was perfected by Roger Ailes, Fox News, Karl Rove and Andrew Breitbart in order to distract from important stories. Again they've succeeded - with a lot of help from Democrats. And the Democrats are weaker & less effective because of it. (Remember, Weiner was attacked only after he started going after Thomas. That is no coincidence.)

Democrats should be fighting against this sort of insanity, not allowing it to continue & overwhelm them. And the Democrats who joined in on it are just as insane.

[bertman]

46. Sorry, I can't buy that line of rationalizing, dude. nt

[truth2power]

47. "...arrogant, irresponsible asshole..."etc.

Unlike a boatload of other Congresscritters who have NOT resigned, I suppose.

IOKIYAR

[Swagman]

43. I believe the Clarence matter will fester away and eventually get worse

[defendandprotect]

49. First, Obama's health care is a disgrace vs MEDICARE FOR ALL ---

a trampling of what the nation desperately needs -- and we shouldn't take

our eyes off of that ball!

Keeping Obama's health care plan in place continues to do what Obama and

Koch Bros/DLC Rahm Emmanuel set out to do -- 'PRESERVE THE PRIVATE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM' --

rather than to move to true universal care for our citizens.

MEDICARE FOR ALL would create jobs and help the budget -- not to mention our tens of millions

of citizens who are ill and suffering.

Obama/Rahm also did back room deals with Big Pharma to prevent MEDICARE from negotiating

on drug prices -- which are often double, triple and 5 and 6 X higher than what other nations

pay for these drugs.


Second, according to Wm. Greider in his 1992 book "Who Will Tell the People?" the Democrats

were colluding with the Repugs on breaking the tax code for the wealthy.

Can we seriously believe that the "colluding" ended after that?

I watched Sen. George Mitchell with a Senate majority turn the Senate over to Sen. Bob Dole!

There is no other explanation for what went on.


"Bipartisanship is simply another way of saying one party rule"


As we can see, if there are still any differences between the parties, they are fading FAST --

[defendandprotect]

50. True, Clarence Thomas is GOP "ace in the hole" -- having helped put W in White House ...

Clarence is their OVERALL "ace in the hole" --

However, let's be clear -- Clarence Thomas is a pervert who should not have reached

the court -- and then Sen. - now VP Joe Biden played a primary role in putting him there!


Presumably Thomas is "repaid" in some way and that the Ginny/Heritage job is simply

part of the payoff --


Weiner has resigned due wholly to his own activities --

After he began bashing Thomas it would have been obvious to any of us that the rightwing

would have been watching him and been after him.

If we could figure that out, why didn't Weiner figure it out --

Weiner should be walking around with a weiner on his head for his stupidity and his

gross behavior.

And, please, don't try to defend it -- unless you want to say that you'd accept that kind

of behavior if Obama or HRC had done it -- !!

[cascadiance]

55. What's the biggest reason for progressives to vote for Obama? The Supreme Court...

... as Thom Hartmann would say. We may be upset with him for everything else and want a primary challenger to go after him, but folks like Thom Hartmann say that we need to make sure that he's reelected to be able to make sure that the Supreme Court goes back in to a "progressive majority".

Now, if Clarence Thomas has to leave BEFORE the election, it then forces Obama to make this change BEFORE the election rather than in his second term. Then he's challenged to nominate a PROGRESSIVE justice to replace Thomas with, or risk losing his base in the middle of an election. If he were to wait until the following term, he could name a more corporatist serving justice and not feel the pressure of an election while doing so.

And if the court were already a "progressive majority" before the election, then people might be more inclined to vote for an independent.

Now, perhaps its not so much to keep Clarence Thomas from leaving as much as it is the TIMING of such. If he is forced to leave NOW, then the threat of a primary challenger perhaps becomes more real to help force Obama to pick a more progressive justice, and challenge him if he fails in the election.

If we can force Thomas out NOW, we have more ammunition to force Obama to pick a more progressive justice to replace him than we well ever have in the coming years. I think Weiner knew this behind the scenes, and he probably was pushing this for that reason.

[leveymg]

64. I like the way you put that together. If Holder fails to Indict, and Thomas is allowed to stay

on the Bench for one or more additional terms, Obama might as well have appointed Clarence Thomas as Associate Justice, himself.
Now, that is not what many of us who worked to elect Barack Obama the first time expected.

If the Administration enables Thomas to remain on the Supreme Court by failing to Indict him, or otherwise can't persuade him to resign, it's hard to imagine anything that might be more devastating to morale in the trenches. Unless, of course, the White House has calculated that they have a greater need and desire for the support of those who want Clarence Thomas to stay on the Supreme Court.

If that's the case, things are even worse than I had imagined.

[totodeinhere]

56. As long as there is a Democrat in the White House the GOP will protect him.

There is too much at stake for the GOP to allow a conservative justice to be replaced by a liberal. But when and if a Republican returns to the White House, they might very well try to convince Thomas to resign since he could be replaced by another conservative. They might offer him immunity in return for resigning.

[cascadiance]

59. If they force an impeachment the Republicans won't like that in an election...

... and as noted in my previous post, if he resigns early, then a primary or independent challenge from the progressive side to Obama becomes a more real possibility too if Obama doesn't name a progressive siding justice.

So the corporate oligarchs at the top are looking at bad options all the way around:
1) Impeachment - Republicans get thrown out for trying to block getting rid of a crook on the court. A more progressive majority in congress works against corporatist interests.
2) Early resignation by Thomas and nomination of a more corporatist judge by Obama has an independent or primary challenger to Obama in the election, which perhaps puts a more progressive president in office (and perhaps a more progreessive congress to boot).
3) Early resignation by Thomas and nomination of a more progressive judge by Obama, has Obama reelected, but a more progressive supreme court. And Obama might be encouraged by his progressive base rewarding him for changing the court too and might be more emboldened to be progressive in other areas.

That is why the oligarchs are encouraging a BIPARTISAN blocking of going after Thomas now. If they can have it even delayed until right before the election, it won't affect the election as much, and the replacement would be nominated in the following session, no matter who gets elected. This is the best option for the corporate oligarchs. Mone is talking to capital hill to make this happen, and to get rid of people like Weiner.

[LiberalLovinLug]

69. Interesting points, but about #2

Are you saying that if Obama elects a corporatist judge he will be defeated by a Democratic challenger?

I do not see this happening. For one, no matter how conservative, the new judge will be lambasted on FOX and to a lesser degree on the other corporatist news networks for even a smidgen of "empathetic" behavior in the past. No matter how gleeful they feel on the inside, the GOP and their mouthpieces have to maintain their position and the "liberal" corner they have painted Obama into.
Case in point, Justice Kagan, who according to Wiki "Today, she identifies with Conservative Judaism"
yet if you peruse wingnut blogs she is secretly working for the vast left wing conspiracy.

So no matter how conservative the appointment, Obama will come out looking more of a moderate by the time of the primary, after both extremes are eliminated from the equation.

Here's another take:
If Thomas leaves and Obama must make an appointment before the election, and that appointment is, or has in the past, NOT been 100% pro-corporate in their rulings, then FOX or some other network will dig up even one small case where he or she sided with a citizen against a poor capitalist company, or right wing local government, and they will scream bloody murder. Pinko, gay, muslim, lefty murder.
This is not what Obama needs when he enters the race against the GOP nominee.

So either way, politically, Obama will not want to appoint a progressive minded judge before the election. Also IMO I have no faith, based on his previous appointments in other positions, that he even WANTS a more progressive justice in there at any rate.

[cascadiance]

77. You reasoning could also be the case too...

And as we have seen, Obama has nominated more "moderate" judges and not someone who could really make a difference, like the right wing selections of Bush have.

Whether it is pressure from the right, which arguably you are probably right that the corporate media will try to position it as, or pressure from the left, who at that point would have the greatest possibility of making this an issue to help contend in a primary or in the general election with another candidate against Obama, Obama and the Dems don't want that scenario play out.

What Obama is trying to sell by holding off doing any appointments until the second term is that:

a) you need me to select supreme court justices to avoid ones nominated by a Republican president.

b) and you can "hope" that I'll nominate a progressive one then. (but which he won't be under any obligation to, and likely will suck up to corporate money for his future in not pushing that envelope then).

I think the answer is for the left to really get organized, not only to get Thomas out of office, but to get a good laundry list of justices we feel are decent enough (like we're positioning Elizabeth Warren for the Consumer Safety Bureau) for him to pick. If there's enough pressure to pick one of those, then he'll feel the need to select one of them before getting elected. And if Justice Ginsberg can retire soon, as she probably will do soon, then even if the Democrats lose the presidency, it will be hard for a subsequent president to reverse the court balance if Thomas gets pushed out and replaced with a progressive, and a presidential loss by a third party being a part of the mix won't be as much of a disaster as it would if Thomas weren't replaced before the election.

[pretzel4gore]

57. look at this: Thomas once said it take him 43 years

to get BACK AT AMERICA. He was 43 years old when he was confirmed to SC, and he was replying to aides suggestions that he might eventually mellow in his rulings. He said (this is from Mayer/Abramson's "Strange Justice" page 360, if i recall right) that it would take him '43 years to get back at the people of usa' and he would never change- iow his hatred for the country was too deep. Yet he has never been called out on it! Amazing

[Gman]

62. The whole Weiner thing is wildly overblown and analyzed all wrong

There's not a whole lot to the Weiner thing. He showed his ...umm... weiner to a woman in a tweet and others found out about it. In a place where politics is a blood sport like DC, he was easy prey. Weiner threw himself under the bus. As a public official, the defense of "everyone else is doing it" doesn't make you look real good. So Weiner is gone.

I don't see where it relates to anything else. Yeah, something's up with Thomas, but the guy isn't going to do anything he doesn't want to do. He doesn't care about what people think so he'll be there for a while, barring impeachment.

[Jakes Progress]

65. Nice reasoning, But I'm afraid the answer is simpler.

thomas won't go with a Democratic president. This president and his AG are too chicken shit to actually do what need to be done.

[totodeinhere]

66. Yes, Thomas will try to hold out until there is a GOP president. n/t

[polichick]

67. Are they chickenshit or complicit?

[Gabi Hayes]

71. worst thing about your question is that it's even seen necessary to be asked.

I've just about had it.

I'm going off on a pout

but first....

[Jakes Progress]

74. Why choose? Likely they are both.

[Kurovski]

70. K&R. (nt)

[closeupready]

75. selfdelete

nt

[Omaha Steve]

76. Great post

[leveymg]

79. Thank you for what you do here.

It's a pleasure mixing it up with so many talented, committed people. Solidarity, forever!