Clarence Thomas was called out for his ridiculous “becoming addicted to wanting particular outcomes, not living with the outcomes we don’t like” comment
Ex-US attorney calls out Clarence Thomas’ remark after leaked opinion
Former U.S. attorney Preet Bharara responds after Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said the court shouldn’t be “bullied” into delivering a particular result. Thomas was speaking to a group of lawyers after a draft majority opinion overturning Roe. v. Wade leaked.
Clarence Thomas Unfit for Supreme Court & Should Be Removed
Justice Clarence Thomas is compromised and should be removed from the Supreme Court due to his incompetence, political activism “decisions”, failure to recuse himself, his wife’s inappropriate behavior such as texts about the 2020 election and potentially LYING under Oath during his confirmation to the Supreme Court.
Clarence Thomas Violated The Law In Plain Sight
MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell analyzes a new Supreme Court order from Justice Clarence Thomas that temporarily blocks Senator Lindsey Graham from having to testify in the Fulton County grand jury investigation into the 2020 election, despite an apparent conflict of interest given his wife’s efforts to overturn President Biden’s victory.
Title from Youtube / MSNBC: ‘Lawrence: Clarence Thomas Is A Politician’
Description from Youtube / MSNBC: “After Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas posed for a photo with the Donald Trump-endorsed Georgia Republican Senate candidate Herschel Walker, MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell says that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is making it very clear to voters whose side he is on”.
Thomas being the only Justice (8 to 1) voting to block release of Presidential records to the January 6 committee raises concerns that Thomas may have used his position to block the committee from obtaining the texts about overturning the 2020 election, between his wife and Mark Meadows (as reported by news outlets such as MSNBC).
This could be a violation of 28 U.S. Code § 455 – Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge “an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding”.
List of conflict of interest issues Ginni Thomas advocated while husband Clarence Thomas made decisions as Justice of the Supreme Court
Disqualification of Judge / Justice US Code
Title from Youtube: ‘Ginni Thomas and Mark Meadows texted about efforts to overturn 2020 election’
Description from Youtube: ‘Virginia Thomas, a conservative activist married to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, repeatedly pressed Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows on efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election in a series of text messages in the critical weeks following the vote, according to copies of the messages obtained by CBS News and The Washington Post. CBS News chief election and campaign correspondent Robert Costa has the breaking news’.
Ginny Thomas (Clarence Thomas’ Wife) Pressured WH to Overturn 2020 Election
Jesse talks about the latest reporting surrounding the efforts of Virginia ‘Ginny’ Thomas (Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ wife) to pressure the White House through Chief of Staff Mark Meadows to not concede and to effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election. She sent DOZENS of text messages containing strategy, conspiracy, encouragement, and general unhinged ideas to Mark Meadows following the November election and January 6th insurrection at the United States Capitol.
Thomas, Meadows Texts Are Most Damning Indictment Against Trump WH So Far
The wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Virginia Thomas, urged then-Chief of Staff Mark Meadows in the weeks after Election Day to pursue efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, according to reporting from Bob Costa and Bob Woodward.
The wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas communicated with former Pres. Trump’s chief of staff about overturning the results of the 2020 election.
According to the above article, here’s copies of Ginni Thomas’s Texts which contain classic Qanon Propaganda;
- “Watermarked ballots in over 12 states have been part of a huge Trump & military white hat sting operation in 12 key battleground states,” Thomas reportedly wrote to Meadows in one message.
- In another message, Thomas reportedly sent a link to Meadows of a YouTube video that was entitled “TRUMP STING w CIA Director Steve Pieczenik, The Biggest Election Story in History, QFS-BLOCKCHAIN.”
- Thomas also seemingly referenced another popular QAnon theory that pushes an event known as “The Storm.” This conspiracy theory posits that Trump’s political enemies would be sent to Guantánamo Bay, also known as Gitmo, for military tribunals. “Biden crime family & ballot fraud co-conspirators (elected officials, bureaucrats, social media censorship mongers, fake stream media reporters, etc) are being arrested & detained for ballot fraud right now & over coming days, & will be living in barges off GITMO to face military tribunals for sedition,” Thomas allegedly wrote to Meadows in November.
Ginni Thomas Actively Tried To Install Losing Candidate As President Legal Expert Says
Ginni Thomas, who has been a steadfast advocate and defender of her husband, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, since his contentious confirmation hearing in 1991, when he faced credible allegations of sexual harassment of Anita Hill and other women. The bombshell revelation from The Washington Post and CBS that she sent 29 text messages to Donald Trump’s chief-of-staff Mark Meadows promoting QAnon conspiracy theories to justify overturning the 2020 election, has now cast yet another shadow over Thomas and the supposed “impartiality” he claims to espouse on the bench.
McConnell Knows Evidence Against Justice Thomas Is ‘Damning’
MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell says Mitch McConnell’s speech insisting Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas should not be impeached shows that McConnell is worried about Clarence Thomas’s future on the Court.
Justice Thomas Is Lone Dissenter On Issues That May Implicate His Wife In Jan. 6
With the Supreme Court’s approval rating at a new low, Justice Clarence Thomas last fall defended the court against the growing criticism that it has become too politicized. Meanwhile, Thomas is married to someone who is extremely politically active on the far right–Virginia ‘Ginni’ Thomas, an American attorney and conservative activist.
Clarence Thomas and his Republican activist wife, Ginni Thomas, show a conflict of interest that should make him the second impeached SCOTUS justice.
Per the above article; “Why Democrats should impeach Justice Clarence Thomas. While Ginni Thomas has worked as a GOP operative, her husband has refused to recuse himself”.
“The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer profiled Thomas’ wife, Ginni, a longtime conservative operative and lobbyist, and revealed how her lobbying firm was on the payroll of far-right activist Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy. Gaffney and others submitted an amicus brief to the court in 2017 in support of the Trump administration’s travel ban, arguing that “the challenge of Islam must be confronted.”
Shockingly, Thomas did not recuse himself from the case given the clear financial conflict. He never even disclosed the $200,000 paid to his wife despite being required to report the source of a spouse’s income as part of his annual financial disclosures, according to The New Yorker. Thomas would later join his fellow four conservative justices in voting to uphold Trump’s shameful Muslim ban.
In February, The New York Times Magazine reported that Ginni Thomas served on the board of a secretive right-wing group called CNP Action. In November 2020, it circulated a “November ‘action steps’ document” instructing its members in the days after the election “to pressure Republican lawmakers into challenging the election results and appointing alternate slates of electors,” according to the report.
But when former President Donald Trump asked the Supreme Court to block the House Jan. 6 committee from obtaining hundreds of pages of White House records from the National Archives, Thomas was the sole justice to vote against the House investigators.
Then on Monday, in an interview with a conservative blog, Ginni Thomas admitted to having attended the “Stop the Steal” rally at the Ellipse on Jan. 6, 2021. She admitted to being in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, thereby endorsing that day’s Trump-led rally to overturn the election, but she claimed to have left before Trump addressed the crowd because she “got cold.”
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.”
Ridiculously, Clarence Thomas wants us to believe he can carry on as an associate justice and remain above the fray. In September, speaking at the University of Notre Dame, he railed against growing criticisms of the court’s partisan behavior. If he really wanted to avoid looking like a politician, why allow his wife’s political activism and income streams to have even the appearance of an impact on his decisions instead of recusing himself?”
The Supreme Court justice is facing a backlash after revelations that his wife implored aides of Donald Trump to try to overturn the 2020 election results.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas concealed decades of lavish, expensive gifts from a Republican donor. He has ties to insurrectionists via his wife Ginni Thomas and voted to overturn Roe v. Wade. His continued presence threatens the credibility of the nation’s highest court. SIGN THE PETITION: Justice Thomas must resign or be impeached!
THE ABOVE PETITION HAS RECEIVED OVER 170,000 SIGNATURES
Law professor says Clarence Thomas’ vote in Trump case should set off alarm bells
Critics are calling for Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself in an upcoming case due to his wife’s political activism.
Sen. Whitehouse: Supreme Court Must Investigate Justice Thomas’s Jan. 6 Votes
Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse is calling on Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts to investigate after The Washington Post reported that Justice Clarence Thomas’s wife was in contact with Trump attorney John Eastman, who was pushing the plan for VP Mike Pence to fail to certify the 2020 election results.
Ginni Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, has stirred debate with her far-right rhetoric.
Justice Thomas Ignores Basic Ethics Where Wife’s Activism, Lobbying Conflict With Cases
Jane Mayer, chief Washington correspondent for the New Yorker, talks about her new reporting on the activism and paid affiliations and lobbying of Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, that Justice Thomas does not acknowledge conflict with cases before the Supreme Court from which he should recuse himself.
The ‘Far-Right Activism’ Of The Wife Of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas
Washington Correspondent for the New Yorker Jane Mayer discusses her new reporting that asks whether Ginni Thomas, wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, poses a threat to the Supreme Court
Isolated: New Heat On Clarence Thomas Over Wife’s MAGA Rally Admission
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is under fire after his wife admitted to attending the January 6th MAGA rally that preceded the insurrection at the Capitol. MSNBC’s Ari Melber is joined the by former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance to discuss whether this revelation has any bearings on Thomas’ recent rulings.
Many people feel Clarence Thomas is unfit for the Supreme Court and is one of the worst Supreme Court Justices in history. His opinions & judgements are inconsistent with the values and beliefs of the majority of Americans. Also, his wife’s activism calls into question her influence on Thomas’s decisions.
The Supreme Court rejected President Trump’s claim of “absolute immunity” from a New York grand jury subpoena for his financial records.
A 7 to 2 Supreme Court decision rejected Trump claim of ‘absolute immunity’ from grand jury subpoena for tax returns.
And who felt Trump should be treated like a Dictator and have ‘absolute immunity’?
REPUBLICAN APPOINTED “Justices” Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.
IMO, this decision shows that Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito are behaving more like political activists than Judges. Bet if Trump were a Democrat, Thomas and Alito would have ruled differently.
It also seems that Clarence Thomas was behaving like a political activist by being the ONLY Justice (8 to 1 – Thomas) voting to block release of Presidential records to the January 6 committee, favor Trump.
Justice Clarence Thomas’ head-scratching, jaw-dropping dissents
Just because Justice Clarence Thomas has a reputation for staying silent on the bench, doesn’t mean the polarizing conservative didn’t apply his own brand of knotty logic in his written dissent of the court’s rulings.
Here are two head-scratching, jaw-dropping examples of Thomas’ recent logical gymnastics at work.
Discrimination exists, we just have to live with it
In the case dealing with the Fair Housing Act, the Supreme Court ruled that the law constitutionally protects against actions that lead to discriminatory results — known as disparate impact — in addition to implicit discrimination. Here’s a nugget from Thomas’ dissent.
“Racial imbalances do not always disfavor minorities … [I]n our own country, for roughly a quarter-century now, over 70 percent of National Basketball Association players have been black. To presume that these and all other measurable disparities are products of racial discrimination is to ignore the complexities of human existence.”
Thomas appears to be saying that, sure, there’s plenty of discrimination floating around but it’d be unfair to chalk it all up to racism. Just look at the NBA. They’re fine, even though most players are black.
In making that point, Thomas fails to acknowledge the actual application of disparate impact claims. Just because the NBA employs a majority of black players doesn’t mean that there is discrimination at work — or that a white player would file a suit to claim as much. Even if that were to happen, the courts would then still have to determine whether the claims of disparate impact discrimination were valid and violated the law. So merely claiming that, in some industries, for instance, minorities have a majority stake apparently does nothing to address the actual application of the law.
But there is one aspect of Thomas’ argument that is indisputable: A majority of NBA players are black.
Your dignity is not the government’s problem
In a win for marriage equality advocates around the country, the court ruled that all states must license and recognize same-sex marriage — regardless of state laws or where the marriages were performed. Justice Anthony Kennedy notably used the word “dignity” nine times in his 34-page opinion. Thomas had a different take on the issue of dignity.
“The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.”
Despite being beaten, raped, and treated as subhuman property — all while living under a government that ostensibly permitted such treatment — slaves either did not lose their dignity at all or, in a broader reading, they can’t blame the government for any loss of dignity. Basically, not the government’s fault, Thomas appears to be saying.
By that application, Thomas’ point seems to be that same-sex couples should just buck up and recognize that it’s the not the government’s role to “bestow dignity.” Article source: msnbc.com/msnbc/justice-clarence-thomas-head-scratching-jaw-dropping-dissents
Clarence Thomas Should Never Been Confirmed to be a Supreme Court Judge
Clarence Thomas should have never been confirmed to be a Supreme Court Judge in the first place due to credible accusations of Sexual harassment by Anita Hill. As they did with the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh, the “Republican party of family values” chose to overlook credible sexual abuse accusations. Also, Thomas wasn’t qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice. One only needs to look at some of his “judicial decisions” as a testament to his incompetence which some call “jaw dropping”.
While Trump was President, the Republican party confirmed numerous Federal Judges to lifetime appointments which the American Bar Association stated were “Unqualified” to be Judges.
Example of Unqualified Republican Federal Judge Nominee
Trump nominated Brett J. Talley, a 36 year old blogger who has practiced law for three years, has never tried a case and who thinks Hillary Clinton should be Jailed, for a lifetime appointment on the Federal Bench.
Clarence Thomas accused of sexual abuse in confirmation hearings with lewd details of “Pubic Hair” & “Long Dong Silver” on National TV
In the above video Anita Hill stated in her Senate testimony on 10/12/91 about Clarence Thomas;
“He would turn the conversation to a discussion of sexual matters. His conversations were very vivid. He spoke about acts that he had seen in pornographic films involving such matters as women having sex with animals and films showing group sex or rape scenes. He talked about pornographic materials depicting individuals with large penises or large breasts involving various sex acts. On several occasions, Thomas told me graphically of his own sexual prowess. Because I was extremely uncomfortable talking about sex with him at all, and particularly in such a graphic way, I told him that I did not want to talk about this subject. I would also try to change the subject to education matters or to non-sexual personal matters, such as his background or his beliefs.” Hill also claimed Thomas stated “there is a pubic hair in my Coke” and that he spoke of “Long Dong Silver“.
With new evidence that Clarence Thomas lied to get onto the Supreme Court after being accused of sexual harassment by Anita Hill while working at the EEOC, it’s time to take the idea of impeachment seriously.
The Daily Caller is a 24-hour news publication providing its audience with original reporting, thought-provoking commentary and breaking news.
Lillian McEwen breaks her 19-year silence about Justice Clarence Thomas
In the above article, ex girlfriend Lillian McEwen stated “He was obsessed with porn.” “He would talk about what he had seen in magazines and films, if there was something worth noting.”
McEwen also said that the conservative Thomas was constantly on the make at work. “He was always actively watching the women he worked with to see if they could be potential partners,” said McEwen. “It was a hobby of his.” She added that he once told her he had asked a woman at work what her bra size was.
Lying Under Oath Could be Grounds for Removal from Office
If McEwen’s accusations are true, that would collaborate Anita Hill’s testimony and prove that Clarence Thomas lied to the Senate, committed perjury, engaged in Sexual Harassment and should be removed as a Justice of the Supreme Court.
Ex-Federal Prosecutor Glenn Kirschner discusses how Judges can be removed without an impeachment vote by the Senate if they lied under oath.
https://www.ctpost.com/opinion/article/Two-ways-Democrats-can-remove-Kavanaugh-without-13317283.php
Per the above article: “A Democratic Congress and a future Democratic president could remove Kavanaugh from the Supreme Court if they wanted without needing to impeach him. There are two other ways to kick a sitting justice off the court – neither of which requires a supermajority.
In the first, a new president would nominate and the Senate would confirm by majority vote a justice – in this case Kavanaugh – to a different post on an intermediate court of appeals (say the D.C. Circuit, where Kavanaugh formerly served). The justice would, in effect, be demoted.
It finds support in an 1803 Supreme Court case called Stuart v. Laird. The fading Federalist Party of John Adams had created 16 new federal judgeships in 1801 – in part to spare Supreme Court justices from having to “ride the circuit” and hear regional appellate cases. Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans triumphed at the polls and abolished the new positions in 1802.
The second alternative method of relieving a justice of his or her duties. In a 2006 article in the Yale Law Journal, two scholars (conservatives, as it happens), Saikrishna Prakash and Steven D. Smith, amassed historical evidence that the Framers understood the “good behavior” standard to be judicially, rather than just politically, enforceable.
They pointed out that judicial removal proceedings were used in English law in the 1780s, and were included in the New York, South Carolina and Massachusetts pre-1787 constitutions. Moreover, they noted, “good behavior” was included by the Continental Congress as a standard in the 1787 Northwest Ordinance for courts in the territories – before there were a separate House and Senate to conduct an impeachment.
As (roughly) proposed in the Yale article, Congress could pass a statute authorizing a specially constituted bench of federal judges – say, five randomly drawn judges – to determine whether a particular judge (here, Kavanaugh) had violated the “good behavior” standard. That special bench could hold a hearing and, if convinced by the evidence, make the requisite finding to trigger exit from the bench. This approach wouldn’t require a congressional supermajority. It would need a presidential signature.
Current federal law contains a trace of this mechanism. When a judge is convicted of a felony, whether in state or federal court, the law now states that he or she “shall not hear or decide cases” unless a council of judges decides otherwise. To be sure, the judge keeps a salary in the interim. But the judge is effectively sidelined – as completely as if he or she were impeached.
The creation of a new vehicle for judicial peer review seems to be the optimal option, as it would create a nonpartisan, procedurally robust device for disciplining judges.
Supreme Court justices right now have no real supervisors when it comes to ethics, and impeachment has come to seem excessively partisan. A standing body, available for all cases of misconduct – not just a ticket for one ride only – would resolve that problem, no matter who the appointing president.
When Supreme Court justices enter a room, you can feel the air change.
As stated in the above article, there’s nothing in the Constitution that explicitly promises federal judges “lifetime appointments.” The language of Article III says justices “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,”.
The Constitution was written at a time when surviving infancy was a triumph—let alone making it to the Supreme Court with enough time for a 30-plus-year stint on the bench.
“The people who created the Constitution of the United States in the 18th century lived in a very different world than we live in,” said Michael Sappol, a historian and author of A Traffic of Dead Bodies, a book about death and social identity. “The idea that judges would get life appointments had a different kind of meaning then than it does now.”
As more Americans live longer, institutions like the Supreme Court are undergoing profound change. In other words, a lifetime isn’t what it used to be. And plenty of people have argued that the highest court in the land ought to be subject to some of the restrictions that lower-level U.S. courts and top courts in other countries already have in place. “Every place else in the world they have age limits or term limits,” says Paul Carrington, a law professor at Duke University.
The five most recently retired Supreme Court justices averaged more than 25 years apiece on the bench. That’s nearly triple the nine-year average tenure of the court’s first five justices.
Justices of the Supreme Court should be allowed to serve for a maximum of 12 years. NO ONE should be guaranteed a job for life. Anyone appointed should be non-political and not affiliated with any political party.
