The Case for Impeaching Clarence Thomas

[kaz]

Unless a third party can confirm the allegations, it is just he-said she-said.

With leftists like Squanto, for Republicans, no explanation is enough. For Democrats, no explanation is required

These freaks amaze me... everybody they don't agree with must be removed from office. How Stalinist.

And silenced

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Thomas should have known he was insulting the liberal Gods when he said that professional victimhood was wearing him down.

 

[Harry Dresden]

You're insane if you buy any of this.

Why? Give some "credible" reasons. I totally buy it. Even Biden knows he screwed up.

could it be because the guy is black?.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

“The idea of someone so flagrantly telling untruths to ascend to the highest legal position in the U.S. remains shocking, in addition to its being illegal.”

New York Magazine is laying out a case for the possible impeachment of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

The cover story, penned by former executive editor of The New York Times Jill Abramson, described Thomas’ rise to power and his apparent immunity to scrutiny during the height of the #MeToo movement. Citing conversations with three women who worked with Thomas, Abramson also detailed a history of lies told by the judge, beginning during his confirmation hearing.

His dishonesty, not the allegations of impropriety, “raise the possibility of impeachment.”

“Lying is, for lawyers, a cardinal sin. State disciplinary committees regularly institute proceedings against lawyers for knowingly lying in court, with punishments that can include disbarment. Since 1989, three federal judges have been impeached and forced from office for charges that include lying. The idea of someone so flagrantly telling untruths to ascend to the highest legal position in the U.S. remains shocking, in addition to its being illegal,” Abramson wrote.

Abramson is the co-author of “Strange Justice: The Selling of Clarence Thomas,” a 1994 book about his controversial confirmation hearing. During the1991 hearing, former employee Anita Hill accused him of sexually harassing her. Hill alleged that Thomas talked about pornography in the workplace and regularly commented on the bodies of female coworkers.

Thomas claimed he never talked to Hill about porn or to other women who worked with him about risqué subject matter.

The hearing quickly turned into the epitome of a he-said, she-said, and despite the allegations, Thomas was later confirmed by a vote of 52-48. Since then, more women have come forward with similar claims about his behavior.

Read the full story at New York magazine.

More: New York Magazine Makes A Case For Impeaching Clarence Thomas

I watched his confirmation hearing live. He should never have been confirmed. The evidence against him was overwhelming. There were more women waiting to testify against Thomas, but his "high-tech" lynching comment scared the shit out of Biden and Kennedy. So the remaining women were never called. However, Anita Hill's testimony alone should have been enough to end his ascension to SCOTUS. She was extremely credible.

He can be impeached for incompetence alone.

you should be impeached out of this forum for your incompetence also...care to comment jones?....

 

[OKTexas]

Once confirmed a judge can't be removed except for misbehavior in office. From article 3 Section 1:

The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,

Simply disagreeing with his decisions don't cut it.


.

I wonder, would "misbehavior" include advertising openly to the American press how Ginsburg said she would cast in favor of Obergefell; which was due to be heard still a month after she gave that interview? Ruth Bader Ginsburg Thinks Americans Are Ready for Gay Marriage

It's not the bitches job to decide what Americans are ready for, it's her job to vote in accordance with the Constitution and current law.


.

 

[Meathead]

Thomas is too uppity for Democrats. They far prefer the plantation types: Jackson, Sharpton, Watters, Obama and so on.

 

[bripat9643]

Wow, the hate filled left wants to impeach the only Black justice on the Supreme Court. Will they go after the Jew next?

What does his skin color have to do with this issue? Do you think that gives him a pass?

There's nobody that leftists hate more than black Republicans.

 

[JoeB131]

Why do women stay with abusers? It's a puzzlement...but we see it again and again and again, don't we?

Sorry, I don't buy that analogy. She wasn't married to him or in a relationship with him.

She made a decision that she could advance her career by hitching her wagon to his star. And after she got all she could out of him, she stabbed him in the back.

Sorry, I think my progressive bona fides are pretty good here. but this isn't a left-right issue. We had two stories, one of them wasn't credible.

 

[MarathonMike]

Why don't you posthumously impeach JFK? He boned more women than Gene Simmons. Well, maybe not but it was a bunch.

 

[Silhouette]

Thomas is too uppity for Democrats. They far prefer the plantation types: Jackson, Sharpton, Watters, Obama and so on.

Yep. He doesn't tow the plantation's liberal line; too much of an independent thinker for them, so it's off to the hangin' tree for him!

 

[Frankeneinstein]

“The idea of someone so flagrantly telling untruths to ascend to the highest legal position in the U.S. remains shocking, in addition to its being illegal.”

New York Magazine is laying out a case for the possible impeachment of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

The cover story, penned by former executive editor of The New York Times Jill Abramson, described Thomas’ rise to power and his apparent immunity to scrutiny during the height of the #MeToo movement. Citing conversations with three women who worked with Thomas, Abramson also detailed a history of lies told by the judge, beginning during his confirmation hearing.

His dishonesty, not the allegations of impropriety, “raise the possibility of impeachment.”

“Lying is, for lawyers, a cardinal sin. State disciplinary committees regularly institute proceedings against lawyers for knowingly lying in court, with punishments that can include disbarment. Since 1989, three federal judges have been impeached and forced from office for charges that include lying. The idea of someone so flagrantly telling untruths to ascend to the highest legal position in the U.S. remains shocking, in addition to its being illegal,” Abramson wrote.

Abramson is the co-author of “Strange Justice: The Selling of Clarence Thomas,” a 1994 book about his controversial confirmation hearing. During the1991 hearing, former employee Anita Hill accused him of sexually harassing her. Hill alleged that Thomas talked about pornography in the workplace and regularly commented on the bodies of female coworkers.

Thomas claimed he never talked to Hill about porn or to other women who worked with him about risqué subject matter.

The hearing quickly turned into the epitome of a he-said, she-said, and despite the allegations, Thomas was later confirmed by a vote of 52-48. Since then, more women have come forward with similar claims about his behavior.

Read the full story at New York magazine.

More: New York Magazine Makes A Case For Impeaching Clarence Thomas

I watched his confirmation hearing live. He should never have been confirmed. The evidence against him was overwhelming. There were more women waiting to testify against Thomas, but his "high-tech" lynching comment scared the shit out of Biden and Kennedy. So the remaining women were never called. However, Anita Hill's testimony alone should have been enough to end his ascension to SCOTUS. She was extremely credible.

the lynchings continue