The House is duty-bound to Bring Articles of Impeachment against Clarence Thomas

[pgodbold]

"The case and the grounds for impeachment proceedings against him are virtually iron-clad. The evidence is compelling that Thomas perjured himself in his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee during his court confirmation hearings in 1991.

The issue is his apparent perjured testimony to a congressional body about his words and conduct. There is no statute of limitations on bringing impeachment proceedings against officials who lie to Congress. The U.S. Code and the Constitution clearly spell out that when there's evidence a Supreme Court justice may have lied under oath the House must bring articles of impeachment to determine guilt or innocence."

This low life abuser must go. The constitution requires it.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-House-is-duty-bound-to-by-earl-ofari-hutchin-101024-749.html

[ejpoeta]

1. sorry but i don't see it happening. nevermind that the republicans wouldn't hesitate

to use any means to do whatever they want. but the dems being afraid of if they do it then the republicans will do it will of course not do anything. i swear they act like battered spouses.

[SpiralHawk]

7. The Republicons will give Clarence a Standing O for his perjury

The same way they gave their beloved Republicon Senator David Vitter a Standing O for his orgy of adulterous Diaper Sex with Hookers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/17/AR2007071701744.html

Republicon Family Values are as much of a farce as the idea that Republicons are "conservatives."

[dgibby]

2. Why do I get the feeling that this will also be "off the table"? n/t

[Javaman]

19. We live in an empty table democracy. nt

[GreenPartyVoter]

30. Well put.

[Initech]

3. Have SCOTUS justices ever been impeached?

Just wondering with the Thomas thing, plus the threats against Roberts for the Citizens United decision, I'm just wondering if it's ever been tried before in history and what the outcome was.

[KossackRealityCheck]

8. Justice Murphy used to score illegal drugs on the streets of DC

and he wasn't impeached.

Funny thing though, Murphy was a terrific justice in many ways who just happened to be a drug addict.

He was very progressive and dissented in the Japanese internment case. Maybe having such a severe problem helped him have sympathy for the down trodden and outsiders.

[ellenfl]

22. but did he lie to the senate when they asked him if he was a

drug addict? i don't think just being one would make him impeachable, unless a lie of omission counts.

ellen fl

[KossackRealityCheck]

23. Perjury isn't the only impeachable crime

As I understand it he was buying illegal street drugs not to far from the Court. That's at least a misdemeanor and depending on quantity and type a felony.

[countrydad58]

25. Bet Uncle Clarence

Has quite a bit of illegal pornography in his possestion including pedophillia is my guess.

[KossackRealityCheck]

26. ha ha ha

he probably purged his hard disk some years ago. oh wait -- they didn't have computer porn back during the confirmation hearing era.

[MilesColtrane]

9. 206 years ago

Associate Justice Samuel Chase was acquitted and returned to the bench.

Federal District Court Judge Thomas Porteous is currently on trial after being unanimously impeached in March.

[mrmpa]

32. Here's a list of federal judges and impeachments/SCJ Sam Chase

In 1804 Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase had articles of impeachment brought against him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_investigations_of_federal_Judges

[Recursion]

34. Samuel Chase, in 1805

He was impeached because Jefferson wanted the Federalists off the Supreme Court. He was eventually acquitted by the Senate. I think he was the only one.

[Jefferson23]

4. I'd like to believe this is even a remote possiblity of happening but

I seriously doubt it. Perhaps we have a chance as a result of his wife saturating her views via him
so heavily in the media that he will need to recuse himself on many cases before the SCOTUS.

[immoderate]

5. It won't happen.

I don't have a recollection of what he said that would rise to the level of perjury. Can you hang him for saying, "high tech lynching"?

--imm

[druidity33]

27. he denied all the charges against him...

so if some were actually true, then yes he would have perjured himself. But i don't think there's any way to prove that.

:shrug:

[KossackRealityCheck]

6. No, they're not.

It might be desirable but it is not a duty. Moreover, it simply isn't going to happen.

[Angry Dragon]

10. Until the people get the garbage out of DC

then we will never have the country that we desire
and what was proposed by the Founding Fathers

[unblock]

11. clarence thomas could rape anita hill on camera and not a single republican would vote to remove him

the right-wing propaganda machine would claim it was desperate liberals trying to overturn a lost vote from ages ago and dragging the good name of a good man through the mud and why oh why are liberals so racist as to do this to such a distinguished black man?

[treestar]

12. When people claim evidence is "iron-clad" or a case is "open and shut"

then I know we're hearing from someone with no experience in the courts.

Just what is this evidence?

I disagree with Thomas as much as the next gal, but that doesn't mean he can be impeached.

[City Lights]

13. I won't be holding my breath.

It'll never happen. Period.

[bobbolink]

14. It is overwhelmingly sad that we all feel hopeless about this.

"Hope".

Yeah, right.

[madrchsod]

15. not in a thousand years.....

republicans have no morals and are above the law

[HopeHoops]

16. Cheney and the shrub still aren't in prison - there's a backlog.

[Greyhound]

17. Just as they were duty-bound to impeach & try war criminals. This ain't happening either.

Still, here's a :kick: & R

[Javaman]

18. While they are duty-bound, I wouldn't hold my breath.

We no longer follow the rule of law in this nation. If we did, george w. moron* would be on trial right now.

[pnwmom]

20. I know he perjured himself, you know he perjured himself,

but where is the "iron-clad" evidence that he perjured himself? Because that IS what we'd need.

[jeff47]

31. Well...

He claimed to not be having an affair.

His mistress just went public.

I have a hard time believing he's so inattentive that he didn't notice he was having an affair.

[chaska]

21. Sigh... One can only dream.

[onenote]

24. "virtually iron clad"

That's an interesting concept. I would think that something is iron clad, or its not. From a legal standpoint, I'm not sure what is different today than before. From the testimony excerpts that I saw (which admittedly maynot be complete) Thomas did not say "I never directed comments of a sexual nature towards any female with whom I was in contact in the workplace." Rather he focused specifically on Anita Hill. At the time, the evidence he was lying was (a) Hill's contention that he had made comments to her of a sexual nature and(b) evidence that he had done the same thing with other women in the workplace. If someone would now come forward with evidence that they heard him direct comments of a sexual nature to Anita Hill, then the case would be bolstered against him. But testimony from a former girlfriend about what he did in private or even additional witnesses claiming that he harassed them builds a stronger circumstantial case that he was lying about Hill, but its still not "iron clad".

Am I enjoying the fact that the world is being reminded what a scuzzbucket Thomas is? Damn straight. Do I think there is an ironclad (or virtually ironclad) case for impeachment on the grounds he lied to Congress under oath? Not really. There was a case to that effect when he was confirmed and the case today really isn't that different and I doubt the result is going to be that much different. We all get reminded he's a lying pig and he gets to stay on the court.

[Scruffy1]

28. Didn't you see the disclaimer at the bottom

It's in very small print-but it clearly exempts those with wealth, privilage, good connections or in the majority .

[usregimechange]

29. If Dems weren't sissies

[The Uncola]

33. Since when have the Dems enforced the Constitution..

.. when it might ruffle a Republican's feathers?

meh, nothing will come of it. Nothing.

[mmonk]

35. The House does not do its duty.

[spanone]

36. if he were a democrat, the hearings would already be scheduled

[mstinamotorcity]

37. Throughout history impeachments are rare.

In this day and age it would surly most likely be a resignation. That way they can avoid prosecution and still have the ability to become a lobbyist or represent a group like Freedom-works or Americans For Prosperity. And even then you must have enough evidence as to force their hand. Or they must make a public disgrace of themselves. Good Luck if you think that a Republican puppet that sits on the Supreme Court will ever lose his seat by anything else. The repugs would fight tooth and nail before they let you get rid of one of the voices that would tilt a judgment in the favor of their agenda.

[nilram]

38. Maybe he changed his mind... Or forgot.

It happens.

[fascisthunter]

39. problem is, too many politicians may have dirt on themselves

there is soooo much corruption right now, that I'm not sure anything will happen because too many in both parties are compromised.